Bringing together a number of earlier points, this is how my information process works. It applies to almost every question, either directly, or in stages if subtle or too complex to then require breaking down. But the same process operates regardless, and is then able to analyse the final result.
I will give some examples how it works, and then you can see how I come to my own conclusions, and why it can then separate beliefs and opinions to actual facts, and what works best for everyone overall.
Off the top of my head road humps are one. Cars are not designed for any more than the minimum number of vertical drops. Simply narrowing or twisting roads slows traffic down and does no damage, so if the council are ideologically determined to reduce speeds to walking pace that does it. Humps are not constant so people slow down suddenly for most and pay more attention to it than the children and animals they are supposed to protect. Emergency vehicles record the number of deaths per year from not reaching patients in time or not getting them to hospital in time as these roads take all vehicles, so we know the number of deaths and claims for damage to cars, but none of the benefits. So using a simple process of cost benefit analysis I find it impossible to justify a road hump, as the aims can be carried out without them and the losses are known.
Not all analyses need to be black and white answers, bus lanes for example depend on the conditions. Generally I can prove they are bad, as when they were introduced in the 70s I discovered rather than build new lanes (as it implies) they simply removed existing lanes and banned other vehicles from using them. That is like chopping a finger in two parts to have an extra one. It is cheating and then where I live the buses wait five minutes or more during the day to get to the bus lane while people queue as the road reduces to one lane for everyone else. This is not unusual, but inevitable, as while the heavy rush hour traffic moves to the right to get out of the bus lane the traffic behind it is held up, often for far longer than the length of the bus lane itself. One road even got rid of it because people couldn't get to the junction as people who made it into the centre were then turning right and cutting off the remainder of the road entirely for people going ahead.
If you either make new lanes, or open them where the roads are so wide they can tolerate them, and there are a lot of buses (most in London have maybe one every ten minutes so pointless) then fine, but otherwise no.
Our old legal argument, week one criminal law, is another example. Our great lecturer, having sold some of the highest numbers of textbooks in this generation, taught us the two sides and then agreed with mine. The question was 'Is the criminal law there to protect people and their property or also enforce morals?'. Now in practice all criminal law systems do both, partly as they originated from the days when religion made the laws, as it still does in many places. Of course all religions differ, so what is moral in Islam is not in Christianity and vice versa. Then from country to country regardless of religion, and over time the moral codes vary constantly. So how can a snapshot in time and location of fixed moral laws be correct at any time, and what is the purpose of enforcing them? None I can see, and technically none.
Whichever issue is now offered, I put it through the same process, and whether fast or slow you get there in the end for nearly all of them. It excludes opinions of course, as most are personal preference, but some can be analysed further into preference based not on consequences but imagination. Utilitarianism is the first principle, then utility. That means does it help the majority, and is it useful at all. Simple but so often obscured in emotion and ideology the actual consequences can easily become hidden. Certain policies however such as high taxation can easily be proved to be wrong, as it hurts everyone one way or another and has no known benefits. It takes less and doesn't give what it does to the poor but spends it as the government of the time chooses, often on themselves. It's always your money and the less they take the better. Government is a last resort as well, only to be used where absolutely necessary and not as a default position to govern everything wherever possible because they can. Basic simple utilitarian principles, and other general principles which can be applied to any issue and provide an answer. In the end there are few questions which can not find an answer using these processes, and they don't rely on trust as you can test them all for yourselves. The underlying principle of all is freedom, and is only taken away as the consequences are harmful in not doing so. Otherwise everything allowing freedom at no cause of harm has to be allowed or is immoral and oppressive.
Wednesday, 13 May 2015
Wednesday, 8 April 2015
The bible and 1984, evil is good.
Doubletalk, wolves in sheep's clothing, good presented as evil and vice versa, these are all concepts beginning in the bible and probably earlier, and consolidated in the book 1984, where everything that was deemed good was bad and listed by Big Brother to indoctrinate the people freedom was slavery. None of this was fiction, it exposed a trick used by governments worldwide who can only rule by deception and consent to that deception. The list of examples is potentially endless, from Hitler's demonising of the Jews within a decade of his election, from a society where the Jews had been accepted and integrated with the natives for centuries. He blamed Germany's economic problems on the Jews as they were not natives and outsiders, and had prospered as professionals and businessmen as the remainder of the German economy failed. So it was their fault, they were an impure race with no place not just in Germany, but the planet itself, and as a faulty race had to be wiped out.
When you read this now how many people previously unbiased would believe it? I think by history the actual answer is as many people as they want to. This is a timeless formula. It worked then and it works now. It takes a baseless claim, one too hard for most people to check directly, so works almost entirely on trust, where if the governments all tell you the same thing they must be right, after all, why would they lie to you or want to hurt you, except Hitler did, Ayatollah Khomeini did, Stalin did, Mao did, Idi Amin did, Robert Mugabe did, etc etc. History actually demonstrates very well governments are actually some of the most extreme tyrants known to mankind. But a psychological process well known within the profession is the exclusion principle, ie 'It can't happen here'. They exploit this, even to our own borders where the IRA could run half of Northern Ireland but never England. Or the Mafia, except we now know as well as making up the largest part of the Italian economy, at 8%, it now also runs Aberdeen. So yes, it can and it does happen right here.
Once you realise your own government are no different from the Mafia, you release the blinkers and accept anything is possible. Of course the Mafia cannot run cities or countries without government acceptance, so we know Italy is run by them, and Aberdeen, as part of Britain, must do as well as normally the police would do all they could to wipe out such a cancer as with any other criminal activities, yet they clearly haven't. Libor fixing could never have carried on for over a decade without full acceptance from the top, and across countries as it set rates worldwide. Are you seeing a picture now? The Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky set these rules out in full, demonising and ridiculing those who attempt to expose the illusions and criminality, mobilising the 'useful idiots' to act as an unpaid army to quash any attempts to expose the true nature of their activities. Reversing the good and evil is the standard formula, insulting those who try and help and accusing them of every possible crime you can think of, with absolutely no idea they are actually right and the people you are trying to defend are your enemy.
The solution is simple, explained in one word, awareness. Use your own research. Just because most people, whoever they are, say something, doesn't make them right, it just makes them act for a mutual interest, which is usually against yours. Look at history, the South Sea Bubble, tulip madness, church indulgences, Enron, Bernie Madoff, all official looking and successful schemes which were all variations of an identical scam. Our police, at the highest level, colluded for 23 years over altering evidence of Hillsborough, when they blamed football supporters for entering an area where in fact the police closed the gate causing them to get crushed to death. And not one person has been charged with a crime so far over it, or for Libor or fixing the gold and foreign exchange prices, all international scams working at the highest level. This represents the norm more than the exception, and as long as most people trust the government they are scamming you by consent, take that consent away and the scams all fall apart, it's really that simple.
When you read this now how many people previously unbiased would believe it? I think by history the actual answer is as many people as they want to. This is a timeless formula. It worked then and it works now. It takes a baseless claim, one too hard for most people to check directly, so works almost entirely on trust, where if the governments all tell you the same thing they must be right, after all, why would they lie to you or want to hurt you, except Hitler did, Ayatollah Khomeini did, Stalin did, Mao did, Idi Amin did, Robert Mugabe did, etc etc. History actually demonstrates very well governments are actually some of the most extreme tyrants known to mankind. But a psychological process well known within the profession is the exclusion principle, ie 'It can't happen here'. They exploit this, even to our own borders where the IRA could run half of Northern Ireland but never England. Or the Mafia, except we now know as well as making up the largest part of the Italian economy, at 8%, it now also runs Aberdeen. So yes, it can and it does happen right here.
Once you realise your own government are no different from the Mafia, you release the blinkers and accept anything is possible. Of course the Mafia cannot run cities or countries without government acceptance, so we know Italy is run by them, and Aberdeen, as part of Britain, must do as well as normally the police would do all they could to wipe out such a cancer as with any other criminal activities, yet they clearly haven't. Libor fixing could never have carried on for over a decade without full acceptance from the top, and across countries as it set rates worldwide. Are you seeing a picture now? The Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky set these rules out in full, demonising and ridiculing those who attempt to expose the illusions and criminality, mobilising the 'useful idiots' to act as an unpaid army to quash any attempts to expose the true nature of their activities. Reversing the good and evil is the standard formula, insulting those who try and help and accusing them of every possible crime you can think of, with absolutely no idea they are actually right and the people you are trying to defend are your enemy.
The solution is simple, explained in one word, awareness. Use your own research. Just because most people, whoever they are, say something, doesn't make them right, it just makes them act for a mutual interest, which is usually against yours. Look at history, the South Sea Bubble, tulip madness, church indulgences, Enron, Bernie Madoff, all official looking and successful schemes which were all variations of an identical scam. Our police, at the highest level, colluded for 23 years over altering evidence of Hillsborough, when they blamed football supporters for entering an area where in fact the police closed the gate causing them to get crushed to death. And not one person has been charged with a crime so far over it, or for Libor or fixing the gold and foreign exchange prices, all international scams working at the highest level. This represents the norm more than the exception, and as long as most people trust the government they are scamming you by consent, take that consent away and the scams all fall apart, it's really that simple.
Thursday, 2 April 2015
A summary of the information process
Rather than a specific piece this is simply a story of my own personal journey from an early view of politics as a teenager which developed over the years, and focused to a point after discovering the web of dirty dealings behind global warming. I also discovered a process of focusing, starting with feelings of right and wrong, followed by evidence and application, and then seeing how people who wanted one outcome often voted for ideas which would bring about the opposite, but did not realise it. Such as the anti-car brigade, who frown on what the think tanks of the left call 'personal transport', yet they need to get everywhere just as much as car drivers, and of course with their typical hypocrisy, most of them do as well. So far there simply isn't any other method to get from A to B besides the journeys you can do on a bike or walk, and public transport is fine if you live near it and it goes where you need, but outside that most non-drivers simply hire a cab and pay someone else to do exactly what they would have done had they owned their own.
Bus lanes were my first exposure to the sheer deviousness of government. Our local paper in the mid 70s announced a rollout of bus lanes in the borough, and being new my mind naturally imagined some sort of road building programme allowing buses to keep their own lanes separate from cars. When all they did was cut existing roads in two, forcing the traffic to half and the rest empty 99% of the time, I realised we'd been conned. Forty years later I now know many policies we've got now and since are variations of that theme, a pig in a poke mock auction where you pay up front and get a sour lemon for a £5 risked investment. Global warming coalesced this mafia-style operation to a worldwide operation, using every trick in the book, the propaganda methods of Goebbels, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and the Delphi Technique, where you offer a number of limited choices making people pick one, when in fact they are all versions of the same thing but the people think the varieties of turd must mean they've picked a good one freely and it's better than all the others, but all they were offered were turds.
The mental process is much like a hole of golf. You start off with a vague idea where the hole is on a par 5 as you can't see it, point in the general direction, and as you get closer the shots and approach narrow down till you see and reach your target. Once you pot the ball then you are complete. The reason some teach and others learn is this process is very standardised. Just like you are expected to be enlightened to teach it, you have a similar level of knowledge to teach politics or sociology. Unlike science, which I loved but failed at A level as my maths wasn't up to the rest of it, I did pass politics, sociology, law and even statistics, so went on after graduation to teach law and politics and can only teach by keeping up with current relevant events, and see the yawning mistakes some pupils can make before they learn how to remedy them. Then you see such mistakes in everyday life, but not being your pupils they have no exams to take and think they are right. You (uninvited) point out the errors and of course get little more than abuse, except the odd few who are pleased to learn and make it all worthwhile.
It doesn't matter, as the process is complete and is not the responsibility of the teacher to collect souls one at a time. You know what you know, you test it to confirm it, and you do your best. The only rule then is never to give up, as you don't know the effect of 99% of your teaching as most people read and do not comment. Then when a few come back and say how much you've taught them you know it's working, and they probably represent many more who say nothing.
So, to summarise, it's a process where certain feelings and suspicions become explored and refined, and the ultimate point is where all the parts collected fit together to a single comprehensive picture, and then when anything happens subsequently you know where it goes within. I spent some time testing my role and can now claim I am qualified to teach, simply as the process is a standard path and it has been completed, taking approximately 40 years, and supported with six year's worth of higher education. Rather than apply false modesty, would a doctor or solicitor say they didn't know much but they'd do what they can or say they know exactly what they're doing and can speak with authority. Otherwise how much confidence would you have in them? The only difference is teaching philosophical and political ideas isn't any specific profession, and like journalists open to anyone with the knowledge and experience regardless of their specific qualifications or lack of any at all. So I am accepting the role now of teacher as I've seen the difference between those who nearly know and know for certain, and most people at all levels are strung out on a range of knowledge and ignorance, while a few complete the route in any one area to see enough to leave precious little absent. There's a regular caller to local radio here, Geoffrey from Bracknell, is a good example of quality standing out, it usually does. It stands above the others when a selection of voices from single sentence comments, opinion pieces, bare facts and comprehensive explanations are all presented when only one actually fully deals with the issue. I have no idea of his qualifications, but his knowledge of history and politics is phenomenal, and depth of perception second to none. The same goes for others, agree with them or not, such as Lord Monckton, who see straight through common illusions and delusions in society and cut them away with the sword of logic. Many are not qualified in the areas they speak of but most educated to a level where they can tackle any subject with equal ability as they have learnt to apply knowledge.
Recognise this in others, and also in yourself. See where you are on the process and see where and how you want to progress. Find others able to do it and read the ways they express themselves, and present every claim with evidence and prepared connections. You need to know why you make a claim and how it fits in to other areas, and if you can't hold up to the toughest questions you tend to get on the radio from the presenters then work at it. Preparing the material means you know your thing, and others will respect it even if many insult you, which is actually a sign you are getting close as you're challenging other people's beliefs which usually ends in a negative reaction, but because you are right, not wrong. This is my path and has been building up ever since I saw my first political speech at around 13 onwards.
Bus lanes were my first exposure to the sheer deviousness of government. Our local paper in the mid 70s announced a rollout of bus lanes in the borough, and being new my mind naturally imagined some sort of road building programme allowing buses to keep their own lanes separate from cars. When all they did was cut existing roads in two, forcing the traffic to half and the rest empty 99% of the time, I realised we'd been conned. Forty years later I now know many policies we've got now and since are variations of that theme, a pig in a poke mock auction where you pay up front and get a sour lemon for a £5 risked investment. Global warming coalesced this mafia-style operation to a worldwide operation, using every trick in the book, the propaganda methods of Goebbels, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and the Delphi Technique, where you offer a number of limited choices making people pick one, when in fact they are all versions of the same thing but the people think the varieties of turd must mean they've picked a good one freely and it's better than all the others, but all they were offered were turds.
The mental process is much like a hole of golf. You start off with a vague idea where the hole is on a par 5 as you can't see it, point in the general direction, and as you get closer the shots and approach narrow down till you see and reach your target. Once you pot the ball then you are complete. The reason some teach and others learn is this process is very standardised. Just like you are expected to be enlightened to teach it, you have a similar level of knowledge to teach politics or sociology. Unlike science, which I loved but failed at A level as my maths wasn't up to the rest of it, I did pass politics, sociology, law and even statistics, so went on after graduation to teach law and politics and can only teach by keeping up with current relevant events, and see the yawning mistakes some pupils can make before they learn how to remedy them. Then you see such mistakes in everyday life, but not being your pupils they have no exams to take and think they are right. You (uninvited) point out the errors and of course get little more than abuse, except the odd few who are pleased to learn and make it all worthwhile.
It doesn't matter, as the process is complete and is not the responsibility of the teacher to collect souls one at a time. You know what you know, you test it to confirm it, and you do your best. The only rule then is never to give up, as you don't know the effect of 99% of your teaching as most people read and do not comment. Then when a few come back and say how much you've taught them you know it's working, and they probably represent many more who say nothing.
So, to summarise, it's a process where certain feelings and suspicions become explored and refined, and the ultimate point is where all the parts collected fit together to a single comprehensive picture, and then when anything happens subsequently you know where it goes within. I spent some time testing my role and can now claim I am qualified to teach, simply as the process is a standard path and it has been completed, taking approximately 40 years, and supported with six year's worth of higher education. Rather than apply false modesty, would a doctor or solicitor say they didn't know much but they'd do what they can or say they know exactly what they're doing and can speak with authority. Otherwise how much confidence would you have in them? The only difference is teaching philosophical and political ideas isn't any specific profession, and like journalists open to anyone with the knowledge and experience regardless of their specific qualifications or lack of any at all. So I am accepting the role now of teacher as I've seen the difference between those who nearly know and know for certain, and most people at all levels are strung out on a range of knowledge and ignorance, while a few complete the route in any one area to see enough to leave precious little absent. There's a regular caller to local radio here, Geoffrey from Bracknell, is a good example of quality standing out, it usually does. It stands above the others when a selection of voices from single sentence comments, opinion pieces, bare facts and comprehensive explanations are all presented when only one actually fully deals with the issue. I have no idea of his qualifications, but his knowledge of history and politics is phenomenal, and depth of perception second to none. The same goes for others, agree with them or not, such as Lord Monckton, who see straight through common illusions and delusions in society and cut them away with the sword of logic. Many are not qualified in the areas they speak of but most educated to a level where they can tackle any subject with equal ability as they have learnt to apply knowledge.
Recognise this in others, and also in yourself. See where you are on the process and see where and how you want to progress. Find others able to do it and read the ways they express themselves, and present every claim with evidence and prepared connections. You need to know why you make a claim and how it fits in to other areas, and if you can't hold up to the toughest questions you tend to get on the radio from the presenters then work at it. Preparing the material means you know your thing, and others will respect it even if many insult you, which is actually a sign you are getting close as you're challenging other people's beliefs which usually ends in a negative reaction, but because you are right, not wrong. This is my path and has been building up ever since I saw my first political speech at around 13 onwards.
Wednesday, 25 March 2015
Hoisted by their own petards, the wild climate claims which backfire
We begin with a classic internet meme, which is stated as a fact but so easy to check if you do investigate.
Now oddly when looking for data to either support or refute this the first I came across was a major collection of peer reviewed literature which rejected global warming, compiled by all people Skeptical Science. Having written a list of over a hundred scientists myself I knew rejected this theory, such as Nir Shaviv and Harold Lewis, who left the American Physical Society as a result as he knew their stance was false based on, well, science. Therefore, for possibly the first time in my travels, did I come across a source who made a claim and proceeded to debunk it on their own website. Now I don't think I need to comment further besides to say in law such facts speak for themselves. Here is the page I first searched for on Willie Soon , the outstanding expert who along with Sallie Baliunas turn out paper after paper dismissing the claims of the IPCC one at a time. Of course he was eventually smeared and had his career wrecked by the 'management' who do not tolerate any diversion from the path. But rather than faff around for hours as I normally have to to raise enough material to create a picture large enough to consider, these clowns had done the whole lot for me. They even made a chart counting every single one, admittedly they claim many have none at all, but besides listing at least as many scientists who are clearly not part of any consensus, wrecking their parallel claim, they admit there is a pretty heavy opposition, and only left me the task to see if their paltry numbers of papers were genuine. Peer reviewed sceptics
Then to further compound their predicament, a similar site Denier List actually contradicts its own claims by making as long a list as they can showing the total lack of consensus over the climate after all. The truth, such as that behind 97% claims normally never seen outside a banana republic's election results, will not only come out far faster than the complex bilge around climate sensitivity and projections which they know perfectly well takes decades to disprove while they collect more and more money from us in the meantime, putting your head on the line to make specific claims based on existing verifiable facts is a stretch too far.
I suppose now I'll have to check some of Skeptical Science's claims of zero peer reviewed papers from specific individuals, although by publishing the list at all they have (along with Denier List) entirely blown apart the 97% list, as when you include the 32,000 or so scientists who signed the petition dismissing such claims would mean over a million scientists agree, probably more than actually exist at any one moment in time. Petition project They have therefore already destroyed their consensus claim themselves by listing the many equally qualified scientists who definitely do not agree with the rest, and there are (one similar source claims only two) a few (OK, 24 in their case) peer reviewed sceptical papers. I assume any individuals quoted would already have sued them had they been wrong on their figures, but you never know, sometimes I've seen such possible slanders lie untouched for years, sometimes the victim not even being aware of them. But that will be a time consuming project so will leave it here that the total of peer reviewed papers they have already raised makes their first claim entire rot and combined with their debunked 97% proves beyond any doubt they are a totally unreliable source of any information whatsoever.
However, just by using their own list the total peer reviewed papers exceeds their claim of 24 by 75 with a total of 99, although maybe some were outside that period, or not totally dismissive, or something. Oddly one of the greatest collections of temperature data ever assessed at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem by Michael Beenstock and Nir Shaviv, which took the Mann and BEST datasets among others and found no evidence of man made warming was indeed peer reviewed, so they fall at the first hurdle I set up, and suspect more if not many more of their zero claims will also turn up to be false. Just a hunch.
Clue: I checked Fred Singer's publications, luckily Wikipedia has provided selections of each by name so have effectively provided a universal source. Score: Skeptical Science- 0 Wikipedia (see below, just a selection remember):
- Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Reidel, 1970)
- Manned Laboratories in Space (Reidel, 1970)
- Is There an Optimum Level of Population? (McGraw-Hill, 1971)
- The Changing Global Environment (Reidel, 1975)
- Arid Zone Development (Ballinger, 1977)
- Economic Effects of Demographic Changes (Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, 1977)
- Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Decisionmaking (Mitre Corp, 1979)
- Energy (W.H. Freeman, 1979)
- The Price of World Oil (Annual Reviews of Energy, Vol. 8, 1983)
- Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984)
- Oil Policy in a Changing Market (Annual Reviews of Energy, Vol. 12, 1987)
- The Ocean in Human Affairs (Paragon House, 1989)
- The Universe and Its Origin: From Ancient Myths to Present Reality and Future Fantasy (Paragon House, 1990)
- Global Climate Change: Human and Natural Influences (Paragon House, 1989)
- The Greenhouse Debate Continued (ICS Press, 1992)
- The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty (SEPP, 1997)
- Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute, 1997)
- with Dennis Avery. Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)
- with Craig Idso. Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (2009).
I may be contacting double Doctor Singer for his opinions next, and now would suggest each similar Wiki page will turn up similar results for all the other zero scorers. I admit I am not physically able to check each of these for peer review, but when weeding out the papers from the books and knowing the process would suggest most if not all the papers would be.
Who funds climate PR?
There is no difference in conspiracy theories on climate change. They are equally present on both sides, with of course the sceptics quoting the vast amounts of money flowing into the research and renewables system mainly from our taxes, and the believers quoting the money going to organisations promoting moderation and questioning is coming from what they label 'big oil'.
Therefore both accept human nature generally stinks, especially at the top, but disagree over basically which group is the worst, with one believing scientists, besides the odd rogue and denier, are basically decent, while businesses by default are greedy and crooked. The others distrust politicians and academics, who are both openly expressing ideological views about imposing their preferred ways of life on others without any authority to do so (as they work for us, they do not rule, as they are all our equals).
Let us look at the evidence. On the sceptical side we have direct quotes going back to the 1940s onwards of plans to rearrange the world economy, threats of climate change and global warming being the means to a new world order, coming straight from the highest levels of the UN and politicians. None is in dispute, all are direct and recorded quotes. Then we have Enron, the largest organised fraud in the 20th century, which created the foundation of climate policy, carbon trading, which is fraudulent as deemed so in a criminal court. It is no longer illegal as the law was changed, but it must still be fraudulent as the court put the board away for organised fraud by carbon trading. Therefore we know for certain both the foundation and means of controlling global warming are based on control and deception. I cannot see a single gap in that conclusion as many people have stated it is a fraud and carbon trading is confirmed as fraudulent in a court of law.
On the other side we have funding. The Heartland Institute and GWPF receive little money, and what they do is recorded and comes from a variety of sources. MoveOn.Org, the Sierra Club, Environmental Media Services, and many like them all the way up to the Climate Research Unit which is the UK source of the IPCC research were also funded by a variety of sources, many of them the same or similar as the first. Therefore we have a series of energy or oil companies, Shell, BP, Exxon etc, all funding both sides. It is all on public record, much of the funding for the CRU came from energy companies, as does for many environmental groups including WWF and Greenpeace. In fact said 'oil' companies are energy providers, tending currently to invest 1/5th of their companies in renewables, so benefit either way. George Soros, behind at least four environmental PR groups, recently sold a $960million holding in Brazilian oil company Petrobras. Other sources of funding such as the Rockefeller Foundation, entirely supporting the environmental side, is founded solely on Rockefeller oil money.
So our bottom line is both sides accept there must be a conspiracy, but disagree over which group are the conspirators. On my own research, all based on legal processes of discovery, show basically the same people are funding both sides, basically creating an artificial divide, and it would be almost impossible on funding and spin alone to decide who is being paid to lie or not. But at least if nothing else could we all accept those in charge are most probably mainly crooked, dishonest and working together to remove trillions (as stated in the latest UN meeting) from the economy, and whether you believe in warming or not, you are almost definitely being ripped off regardless, as the evidence guarantees the vast majority of those at the head of climate change are working together and dishonest. That is what we should unite to fight against, not each other as whatever our beliefs, we are all being hurt equally.
Therefore both accept human nature generally stinks, especially at the top, but disagree over basically which group is the worst, with one believing scientists, besides the odd rogue and denier, are basically decent, while businesses by default are greedy and crooked. The others distrust politicians and academics, who are both openly expressing ideological views about imposing their preferred ways of life on others without any authority to do so (as they work for us, they do not rule, as they are all our equals).
Let us look at the evidence. On the sceptical side we have direct quotes going back to the 1940s onwards of plans to rearrange the world economy, threats of climate change and global warming being the means to a new world order, coming straight from the highest levels of the UN and politicians. None is in dispute, all are direct and recorded quotes. Then we have Enron, the largest organised fraud in the 20th century, which created the foundation of climate policy, carbon trading, which is fraudulent as deemed so in a criminal court. It is no longer illegal as the law was changed, but it must still be fraudulent as the court put the board away for organised fraud by carbon trading. Therefore we know for certain both the foundation and means of controlling global warming are based on control and deception. I cannot see a single gap in that conclusion as many people have stated it is a fraud and carbon trading is confirmed as fraudulent in a court of law.
On the other side we have funding. The Heartland Institute and GWPF receive little money, and what they do is recorded and comes from a variety of sources. MoveOn.Org, the Sierra Club, Environmental Media Services, and many like them all the way up to the Climate Research Unit which is the UK source of the IPCC research were also funded by a variety of sources, many of them the same or similar as the first. Therefore we have a series of energy or oil companies, Shell, BP, Exxon etc, all funding both sides. It is all on public record, much of the funding for the CRU came from energy companies, as does for many environmental groups including WWF and Greenpeace. In fact said 'oil' companies are energy providers, tending currently to invest 1/5th of their companies in renewables, so benefit either way. George Soros, behind at least four environmental PR groups, recently sold a $960million holding in Brazilian oil company Petrobras. Other sources of funding such as the Rockefeller Foundation, entirely supporting the environmental side, is founded solely on Rockefeller oil money.
So our bottom line is both sides accept there must be a conspiracy, but disagree over which group are the conspirators. On my own research, all based on legal processes of discovery, show basically the same people are funding both sides, basically creating an artificial divide, and it would be almost impossible on funding and spin alone to decide who is being paid to lie or not. But at least if nothing else could we all accept those in charge are most probably mainly crooked, dishonest and working together to remove trillions (as stated in the latest UN meeting) from the economy, and whether you believe in warming or not, you are almost definitely being ripped off regardless, as the evidence guarantees the vast majority of those at the head of climate change are working together and dishonest. That is what we should unite to fight against, not each other as whatever our beliefs, we are all being hurt equally.
Thursday, 19 March 2015
Picking apart the attacks
This is not a true information piece, just a demonstration of dealing with misinformation techniques used by the dictatorial cheerleaders of any dishonest and corrupt regime, this century best represented by the global warming fanatics. Here is an archetypal statement made a moment ago using every trick known by lawyers and politicians, and as a result caused western law to ban such practices in a courtroom as it exploited witnesses and misled juries. The brother of the direct leading question is the false assumption, where the proposer sets it as a given "We all hate Jews/blacks etc/ want to reduce our carbon footprint/ want to shit in our neighbour's gardens (OK I made the last one up, but you get the picture)", and go on to try and sell you a product or idea based on not the fact but the claim presented as a fact. Over half of people (as proved in surveys) go along with it as it is like catching fish with a lure rather than bait. It looks like food, it moves like food, I'll eat it and be caught.
Here is the guilty statement:
"Denial is such a sad mental state to be in...try seeking the help of a mental health professional in order to cope with reality. You may feel better, be more likeable and finally increase your decision-making capacity and positive outcomes"
Besides its clear patronising stance, by beginning a statement with a claim of 'denial' it brings in both the existing followers, who already believe such nonsense, and the waverers who hadn't yet made their minds up. The remainder are free of ideology so simply feel insulted and walk away before the person tries to take their money, wife or house, or all three. It then makes personal insults, as if you could be 'more likeable and feel better' you're clearly shit right now according to their personal opinion. And when they expand you discover their term 'denial' doesn't mean the handful of people, mainly highly qualified scientists, who say CO2 cannot cause any warming, who actually call themselves 'slayers', but everyone who does not totally accept man made CO2 emissions will wreck the planet.
So even the few believers who are not quite as determined as they are to ruin the world's economy just yet, but totally buy into the GW trope otherwise such as Bjorn Lomborg are lumped together with all the others because even a small absence of acceptance of every single element is seen as a heresy and they see no difference between a 2% sceptic such as Ljomborg and the slayers. To them they are the same as Jews were to Hitler, one distant Jewish ancestor, and you got the yellow star and concentration camp. If you don't agree with the entire Koran, I mean UN, you are a heretic and only worthy, according to some, of the death penalty. I am not exaggerating, and speaking against global warming religion is being pushed as a crime by Al Gore and many like him.
Making an appeal to change personal is a smart trick. It makes the person take their attention totally away from the issue, back to them, and then to fitting in with society. It's basically saying 'Don't be like an outcast, come and join our club, you're not a Jew so why help or defend them, even defending a Jew makes you one of them and we will add you to the list'. Or denier, what's the difference, the mechanism is the same. The only difference being you can't stop being a Jew, but as a so-called denier, you are able to change sides and stop being an apologist, a Jew-lover, and join the majority who hate and persecute Jews just like Uncle Adolf told them to.
Of course these creeps wouldn't keep rolling out these tricks if they didn't work. For every one who resists some will fall, the trap was set and many simply see the words and take them literally. "I am a denier, denial is bad, I must stop denying or I may be convicted of a crime and even lose my life. I believe, I am converted." This is how the world has gone, with politicians and scientists working together to convert weak minds from Austria to Zambia and everywhere in between. That is a known, but the added information is how to see through these technically cheating manipulations of people's minds and thoughts and let them bounce off you like an inappropriate insult would naturally. Of course calling someone a denier is an inappropriate insult, as currently there is far too little known to have something to deny. But they treat it as certain as the sun rising each day and knowing the exact moment it will. Even though the actual warming they talk about has nearly all never happened.
So, assumption follows assumption. You're a denier, you do not accept reality. That is a complete state, like pregnancy. Something is either real or not. Global warming is a slightly known about potential which may happen in 50-100 years but none of us alive today will be likely to see it either way. That is their reality. The physical trend, requiring CO2 warming to cause humidity increased warming and then climate problems is a multi stage process which besides the CO2 rise responding with a very minor rise in temperature (the 0.8C is made up of nature (25-50% but no one really knows), and adjustments which raise a basically flat random trend to a hockey stick which ended around the end of the 20th century and has now worn off, the decadal trend now reducing per year. That is not anything but a minor response to a major change, a 50% rise in CO2. Add to that every previous warm period corresponded with a rise in CO2, but after the temperature rose, means CO2 is released by the oceans when nature warms the earth and follows the temperature, meaning its role is mixed at most, certainly not all as a cause of warming rather than an effect. In fact the long used holocene temperature records prove our current peak is a regular occurrence, the red herring was our burning of fossil fuel, and in fact it just happened to coincide with an inevitable rise, one which happened many times before and never before caused by CO2. And we are at a lower peak than the others.
Once you look at the context, the only thing you can deny is that we are at a natural regular peak, and maybe the rise in CO2 was caused by the rise in temperature. I have yet in twenty or more years of reading the papers to see this single diagram which puts every other claim into context, and removes much of the weight from the claims man's output of CO2 and nothing else is responsible for the current warming, even though they cannot prove it and there are many other known causes, although not the exact degrees. Do I call people who disagree with this deniers? Not exactly, as proxy temperatures are fairly easy to revise, as the UN did three times so far, by conjuring away the medieval warm period and then bringing back a shadow of its former self. They claim new methods make it easier to measure the past, but so far not one scientist has ever questioned the diagram above, it is the best known holocene record, and therefore impossible to attribute today's rise on anything if it was always going to happen anyway. The longer record shows the same peaks every time, and happen approximately every 10,000 years, we were due for it right now, and we have it, but less than before, despite the additional CO2. If you can figure that out then there may be something to actually deny, till then this is the position and it is a complete uncertainty, one which is not open to a single claim of knowns, as even the temperature itself is mainly estimated by filling in gaps where there are no measurements, and altering for local conditions.
Ultimately denying it is uncertain is the only true sense of possible denial in man made global warming. All other claims and accusations are simply mind games played by the unscrupulous.
Here is the guilty statement:
"Denial is such a sad mental state to be in...try seeking the help of a mental health professional in order to cope with reality. You may feel better, be more likeable and finally increase your decision-making capacity and positive outcomes"
Besides its clear patronising stance, by beginning a statement with a claim of 'denial' it brings in both the existing followers, who already believe such nonsense, and the waverers who hadn't yet made their minds up. The remainder are free of ideology so simply feel insulted and walk away before the person tries to take their money, wife or house, or all three. It then makes personal insults, as if you could be 'more likeable and feel better' you're clearly shit right now according to their personal opinion. And when they expand you discover their term 'denial' doesn't mean the handful of people, mainly highly qualified scientists, who say CO2 cannot cause any warming, who actually call themselves 'slayers', but everyone who does not totally accept man made CO2 emissions will wreck the planet.
So even the few believers who are not quite as determined as they are to ruin the world's economy just yet, but totally buy into the GW trope otherwise such as Bjorn Lomborg are lumped together with all the others because even a small absence of acceptance of every single element is seen as a heresy and they see no difference between a 2% sceptic such as Ljomborg and the slayers. To them they are the same as Jews were to Hitler, one distant Jewish ancestor, and you got the yellow star and concentration camp. If you don't agree with the entire Koran, I mean UN, you are a heretic and only worthy, according to some, of the death penalty. I am not exaggerating, and speaking against global warming religion is being pushed as a crime by Al Gore and many like him.
Making an appeal to change personal is a smart trick. It makes the person take their attention totally away from the issue, back to them, and then to fitting in with society. It's basically saying 'Don't be like an outcast, come and join our club, you're not a Jew so why help or defend them, even defending a Jew makes you one of them and we will add you to the list'. Or denier, what's the difference, the mechanism is the same. The only difference being you can't stop being a Jew, but as a so-called denier, you are able to change sides and stop being an apologist, a Jew-lover, and join the majority who hate and persecute Jews just like Uncle Adolf told them to.
Of course these creeps wouldn't keep rolling out these tricks if they didn't work. For every one who resists some will fall, the trap was set and many simply see the words and take them literally. "I am a denier, denial is bad, I must stop denying or I may be convicted of a crime and even lose my life. I believe, I am converted." This is how the world has gone, with politicians and scientists working together to convert weak minds from Austria to Zambia and everywhere in between. That is a known, but the added information is how to see through these technically cheating manipulations of people's minds and thoughts and let them bounce off you like an inappropriate insult would naturally. Of course calling someone a denier is an inappropriate insult, as currently there is far too little known to have something to deny. But they treat it as certain as the sun rising each day and knowing the exact moment it will. Even though the actual warming they talk about has nearly all never happened.
So, assumption follows assumption. You're a denier, you do not accept reality. That is a complete state, like pregnancy. Something is either real or not. Global warming is a slightly known about potential which may happen in 50-100 years but none of us alive today will be likely to see it either way. That is their reality. The physical trend, requiring CO2 warming to cause humidity increased warming and then climate problems is a multi stage process which besides the CO2 rise responding with a very minor rise in temperature (the 0.8C is made up of nature (25-50% but no one really knows), and adjustments which raise a basically flat random trend to a hockey stick which ended around the end of the 20th century and has now worn off, the decadal trend now reducing per year. That is not anything but a minor response to a major change, a 50% rise in CO2. Add to that every previous warm period corresponded with a rise in CO2, but after the temperature rose, means CO2 is released by the oceans when nature warms the earth and follows the temperature, meaning its role is mixed at most, certainly not all as a cause of warming rather than an effect. In fact the long used holocene temperature records prove our current peak is a regular occurrence, the red herring was our burning of fossil fuel, and in fact it just happened to coincide with an inevitable rise, one which happened many times before and never before caused by CO2. And we are at a lower peak than the others.
Ultimately denying it is uncertain is the only true sense of possible denial in man made global warming. All other claims and accusations are simply mind games played by the unscrupulous.
Acting on global warming
Once
you leave the known science the second part, the one applied by
politicians, is cost benefit analysis (CBA). That means not basing your plans
on knowns but possible alternatives. You lay them all out, then any
actions, and measure the total for each. The only science remaining
then, which unfortunately is of the very lowest usable level, is the
chances of each scenario happening, which is actually not possible to
know within reasonable bounds.
Our biggest mistakes were acting on the worst case scenarios rather than the mid or best. We have already paid our fines and taken our punishments 50-100 years before we know if we were even guilty. That was a result of politicians taking over and screwing the science and the scientists. And no one needs to be a scientist to play out the alternative results, that is pure data crunching.
I think by now we know the details. Make fossil fuel more expensive, or ban some altogether. CBA- everyone has less access to energy and everyone pays more right now, the poor suffer the most as it is an essential. Take taxes and subsidise wind, solar and biofuel. Would wind and solar exist for general use without subsidies? Almost certainly not. Could they ever supply a constant and variable on demand base load? Never. What does biofuel replace? Food and land for food crops, making food shortages and the remainder more expensive. Harm today for no known benefits now or ever.
These are the major plans of the Kyoto Protocol, plus carbon trading and credits, both created by Enron and both deemed fraudulent by the court who prosecuted them for it. Cost, everything, benefit, total loss of money to big businesses. Result, no change in CO2 emissions since Kyoto began being implemented. Did they decide all their plans didn't work so they'd have to give them up? Of course not, if taxing doesn't reduce emissions tax more. If it doesn't still reduce them they've made a heck of a lot of money anyway, and that's a good thing. But not for us.
Our biggest mistakes were acting on the worst case scenarios rather than the mid or best. We have already paid our fines and taken our punishments 50-100 years before we know if we were even guilty. That was a result of politicians taking over and screwing the science and the scientists. And no one needs to be a scientist to play out the alternative results, that is pure data crunching.
I think by now we know the details. Make fossil fuel more expensive, or ban some altogether. CBA- everyone has less access to energy and everyone pays more right now, the poor suffer the most as it is an essential. Take taxes and subsidise wind, solar and biofuel. Would wind and solar exist for general use without subsidies? Almost certainly not. Could they ever supply a constant and variable on demand base load? Never. What does biofuel replace? Food and land for food crops, making food shortages and the remainder more expensive. Harm today for no known benefits now or ever.
These are the major plans of the Kyoto Protocol, plus carbon trading and credits, both created by Enron and both deemed fraudulent by the court who prosecuted them for it. Cost, everything, benefit, total loss of money to big businesses. Result, no change in CO2 emissions since Kyoto began being implemented. Did they decide all their plans didn't work so they'd have to give them up? Of course not, if taxing doesn't reduce emissions tax more. If it doesn't still reduce them they've made a heck of a lot of money anyway, and that's a good thing. But not for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)