Friday, 14 October 2016

The left want to go against nature

Before politics and in the remainder of the animal kingdom nature rules. Darwinism, social and biological is the only law, and men and women have roles not decided by politicians but by what is practical. If you give everyone in a country £20,000 then in five years some will have made it into £100,000 and others will have wasted it all. If you keep taking the money the better off have earned and give it to the others then they will continue to waste it and suck off the successful like a parasite. Of course a basic income would solve poverty overnight, so everyone had enough to live on and then whatever else they earn could be taxed at a flat rate to provide the general income, and there is your only needed welfare state.

The roles of women are not imposed in nature, they arise naturally. Until the 70s, when British house prices started becoming too high for one income then the previous (consensual) role of the housewife was lost to the vaults of history. How many women with a family given the chance would work full time till retirement unless they had to? Then we have the artificial construct of same sex marriage. The original difference between a lifelong partnership and marriage was raising a family. What did you say? Gay couples can raise a family? No, they can't, it's impossible. They can adopt a child sired by one partner and condemn it to be brought up without a parent, but of course nature does not allow for that so in order to twist so called equality law gay couples are now allowed to deliberately bring a parentless child into the world rather than adopt one that was already unwanted. Helping an orphan is totally different from creating a child from scratch and eliminating one of the parents by choice.

The amazing decision by the psychiatric community to remove one single type of body/personality dysphoria from being a mental illness but keep the others means politics has gradually crept into science. Not content with changing century long names for syndromes such as spastic, moron, backward and mongol, which were all recognised medical terms, they had to actually succumb to the insidious force of political correctness, and claim a person who actually believes they are the opposite sex are as normal as anyone else. They are still delusional, and had they believed they were an animal or another race and had surgery to look more like it no one would believe they were sane, as they aren't, but slicing off your equipment and calling yourself Mary with a voice and chin still like Marvin is no different however many psychiatrists say they are.

Equality is a total joke as well, as alluded to with the financial example. Every life is equal, every person is different. Family members are similar, and whatever the PC brigade want to order you to believe every racial group is a larger family and will naturally get on with and understand each other better than outsiders. It's not the obvious visual differences either. Being Jewish some people do obviously look Jewish, and many more do not. And throughout my lifetime I've got on well with many people for some time long before discovering they were Jewish. I had no idea till they told me, and when I meet Jews abroad we get on like long lost family, much like when I'd spent a few days in France and finally met my first family of English tourists. It wasn't the language as I could reasonably understand French and we went there to see our French friends there, but foreign is foreign and we all know how that feels when we're somewhere very different and feel totally lost.

So claiming it's fine for the entire third world to flood into Europe, as the EU countries have unanimously decided, is not in anyone's interests. How can it be racist to disagree with it? No large groups of people from abroad spread evenly in their new countries, but simply transplant from one country to an area in another where they are with their own people, often speak their own language, and open shops to supply themselves with the food and items they are used to, as we all would in the same position. It isn't short term with the next generation start to assimilate, but normally long term to permanent. They may move up in society but when they move they move together. And the so called liberals who attack anyone disagreeing with mass immigration to Europe forget nowhere in Asia or Africa has it, and no one complains, except a few far left academics who are determined to make Japan multicultural. Why? Because they hate the fact the Japanese are the strongest national culture on the planet and sets and example to everywhere else who wants to maintain theirs.

Nature is bigger than you and me and politics. The left hate it and want everyone to get the same benefits whoever they are, and claim given a few years of exposure to western values they will always rub off. Well of course the evidence shows the opposite. Career criminals who move abroad simply export it there, and the knife and gun culture of the West Indies (ask a Jamaican, it's not a racist claim) is now a regular occurrence in London, as are the Romanian robbery gangs. You can't turn anyone into something they are not, and the claim I first heard at school was that intelligence is down to your environment awakened me to the sheer denial of reality inherent in leftism. Siblings have very similar upbringings but are all totally different in their academic ability, and when they do well often take different subjects as they are all different people. Thank goodness with genetic profiling they have finally started to prove more and more qualities are decided at birth. Mensa made it fairly clear, you can always reduce intelligence with the wrong conditions but can never increase it. Just look at the extremes. If you have Down Syndrome then you are locked at that level. I can't see anyone arguing with that is it's so obvious. Just because it isn't so obvious with anyone else doesn't mean the subtler variations are any different.

Accusations of hate when anyone tries to use nature as the ultimate rule in life is because the left hate the fact we aren't all equal as individuals and totally different as groups. That can and will never change, and just as dogs are bred to have different qualities deliberately, so have human beings naturally, and trying to force that out of existence is a crime against humanity for motives of sheer and utter stupidity and immaturity. Understand reality and accept it. Nature isn't fair, it just is as it is, if you don't like it then find another reality to inhabit, don't try and spoil this one.

Tuesday, 16 August 2016

Working through the mud

There are many ideas accepted by society as a whole which only a minority of people stop and think to work out for themselves, and once they do they follow the logical thread through the mud to the conclusion. Has the establishment made a plausible claim, like high house prices are good for you? Use my formula and you will be able to work these out for yourself and be armed with every reason to stand up to claims to the opposite by the sheep and perpetrators of the lies and illusions they peddle for vested interests.

I have a few examples but the same process can be applied to every single example of societal groupthink, times when normality is turned on its head and people are expected to follow others regardless of their own views, and insulted if they openly disagree. But when they stop becoming opinions (which are all equally valid) and become facts then they are finished as claims and become open lies being exposed by logic. Even the cases that fall in between and can be seen as opinions (which the proponents present falsely as facts) can be treated the same way. Even if they can't clearly be discerned you can still work through the facts to get to what I'd see as the inevitable result for each.

The flavours of the month for the current two examples are transgender and gay marriage. On the surface both are blindly accepted by what I can only call the masses. However if you actually dig through the layers of both you start seeing through the smoke and mirrors illusion and reach the probably sole conclusion lying at the end for all people.

This is how I personally worked through each and can see many others around who have found exactly the same conclusions.

Transgenders are probably the clearest example. Nature offers two standard alternatives, male XY and female XX plus a few errors which provide rare variations. But transgenders are people who want to be the other of the two usual genders, which is fine if they want to dress and act as it, but cannot by definition actually become one. Firstly we are all made of two things, primarily our awareness and secondarily the bodies which carry that awareness. Anyone in a primitive society unable to think beyond what is there is unlikely to feel their body is any more than a body, much like an animal would. It is only in our more sophisticated society where people question and challenge everything the notion of wanting to be someone or something else comes into being. Does anyone really think stone age men were equally afflicted by the idea they wanted a woman's body and couldn't be themselves till they had one, especially as till the 1960s the operations and drugs required weren't available so besides changing their clothing were stopped at the second hurdle.

Using no more than direct experience, ask a man what it feels like to be a woman and vice versa. They can't know, it's not possible to experience anyone else let alone the opposite sex. Yes, someone can have dysphoria and imagine they'd rather have a different body, a thinner one,  one with a missing limb or the opposite sex, but this is a mental not a physical aberration. Able or disabled, your body is the only one you've got, and besides the usual physical improvements you can make through exercise and diet is doing a good job and unless you look at it in a mirror or directly does not actually come into your awareness much during the day as you are looking outside it at everything else.

Looking at the cosmetic and medical treatments once someone has been determined to change, one actually inflames the issue as if a man feels female surely the best hormone treatment would be male, to see if the feeling could be corrected. But the medical profession instead will medically emasculate the man and reverse the effects (or in the case of a child neutralise them) of puberty. The oestrogen will then force their male bodies to grow breasts, although many can never change their voices once they have broken, so whatever the outer view the voice will always give the truth away. Nature must force itself over nurture every time however hard people work to try and override it. Then they whip off healthy organs (surely against the Hippocratic oath?) to make a hash of pretending to make their male or female organs look like the other, and cut out the gonads altogether like you would a cat. But if they were burnt to death in a fire the DNA test would always show male if they were born male. Every single cell.

So just because you force the existing organs to try and look like others, including hideous scars where women have had their breasts removed, it is no different to pinning pointy ears on a dog, flattening its muzzle and saying it's a cat. However convincing it may be now or in the future you are not fooling anyone, it is a wrapping and under the wrapping is exactly what was there before.

I could go on, but besides having addressed this specifically here already, you can see how I worked round the initial article in the Observer Magazine back in the 60s where they said a man has had a sex change, and as a child I assumed they meant he had become a woman. I worked from that childish assumption as an adult, realised the reality, and came to the only possible conclusion that a man is a man, a woman is a woman, and a dog is a dog whatever they want to be or can be disguised (and mutilated) to look like. Unlike opinions, there is no other view, a man can't become a woman until they can swap their DNA and change form naturally as a result.

Moving on to more artificial and opinion based views, marriage is an entirely human based idea, although it follows many animals who pair for life with a human version carrying a legal status.

That status was always extremely simple. A man and woman marry (fit) together for life where they can (not 'must') raise a family. Gay people, once it became legal, wanted similar lifetime contracts so were given civil partnership, because only opposite sexes could marry. Until David Cameron (a Conservative in name only) decided (without consulting a single voter as it was not in the manifesto) the same sexes could also marry, and now half the world has followed.

Of course marriage can be among groups, animals or anyone else as a marriage itself is simply a lifetime status of partnership. But the first requirement is consummation of the marriage, absence of which is not a ground for divorce (meaning the marriage is dissolved) but annulment, ie you were never married. As marriage means fitting together, like a plug or joint, two men or women simply can't (besides anal sex for men, which is unhealthy and potentially dangerous), so as it's highly unlikely legal marriage can be extended to rule out consummation as a primary requirement, in which case they may as well just be long term friendships between any two people, it fails at the first hurdle, and is recognised in the law that in same sex marriage consummation is not a cause for annulment as it is physically impossible to do so. That should point you to the status of same sex marriage in relation to marriage in general.

But the thought process which takes you from an apparent given, accepted by all on the surface, to digging through the layers and answers till you reach the conclusion, like any maths problem, will take the claim to either the yes or no pile, and should then be impossible for anyone to win an argument against you once you have gone through the process of working out whether a claim is valid or not properly. Keep doing it, watch my examples, and learn how to apply it to anything else like low interest rates, high house prices and socialism which all seem good to children but are toxic to all but the few percent who profit from them.

Friday, 27 May 2016

Common sense and body dysphoria

I have been investigating all the aspects of the current trend for transgenderism, something which till recently was considered one of a family of many similar mental illnesses exhibiting the delusion you believe you are something you are not. These had been treated in the usual ways using therapy and exceptionally surgery, but despite offering sex change surgery it was still the result of trying to settle the mind of the sufferer, using in my view excessive force by excising healthy functioning organs and administering toxic hormone treatment which causes sterility.

Now although body dysmorhpia itself has not changed the transgender aspect has been removed from the spectrum, claiming men really can be women and vice versa. One study even claims this is because the sufferers (as they really suffer) have different brains. I don't think anyone really accepts this much as a brain is a brain and doesn't vary enough from men to women in ways we can yet detect. I will post the links at the end. Before this ground breaking decision there was a long and potentially unlimited list of alternative beliefs about ones identity. Transgender was clearly the commonest and others are very unusual but equally real to the individuals concerned. This can include identity (Jesus and Napoleon were favourites), fatness (anorexia), amputeeism (your limb is not yours and you want it removed, some surgeons actually will), species, race, and anything else you can think of.

I challenged one of these activists recently. I said I am a genius, and they said you're a liar, you're not a genius. I said using their logic if I decide I am a genius then you must accept it, it is no different from deciding I am a woman. Apparently subjective identifying only works for them on some areas so far and not others. Which of course using their logic is discriminating against other types of identity delusions. Of course I don't lie as I had a test in 1971 which put my IQ at genius level, otherwise I'd lose all my credibility in a single statement. But the side issue it raised very usefully was these people only accept delusions when they fit their own political agendas, and not any others equally genuine to the individual.

Of course gender is a political phenomenon. You have 99% of people XX female and XY male. If they are burned in a fire the DNA will always tell you that, whatever operations the person had had to make the surface appear something else. There are no sliding scales, and the in between are XXY, XYY is super-male with no obvious symptoms besides aggression, and a few other intersex disorders irrelevant to transgenderism as they have no obvious gender at all. A man or woman is free in a free society to dress and name themselves however they want, and nowadays few will not get a job as such, especially as it would be illegal not to let them go to work dressed as the opposite sex. But insisting a man who may or may not have had cosmetic surgery to create the rough (and it is very rough) impression they have a woman's body is a woman is a pernicious lie and one even the least discriminating people are beginning to wake up to.

Using psychology, something I am qualified in so beyond the level of a mere blog, your identity has various aspects. If for example you apply for a job or take an exam you do not normally decide the results yourself, but hand it over to others. The same applies to what sex you are. Some of the hulking body builders with a wig and a dress who call themselves Susan or Jackie and appear on television presenting themselves as women will not swing the credibility of a single person, they are just too polite to say so in public. A few, like Paris Lees, happen to have the sort of features which can fool you from a reasonable distance, but penetrate far enough (literally) and the reality will be apparent.

Using the logical argument, does a twin brother know what their twin feels like? Or a parent? Or a male friend? Not really, we only know for certain how we feel. If we are blind we feel a body but we don't know what it looks like, and what men or women look like, so purely take our information from others. A blind man would probably be less likely to be transgender as he isn't able to see a difference in the first place to feel like the other person. But besides the physical awareness, when we are not looking at our bodies to remind ourselves we see everything in front of us instead, our bodies usually disappear. Look in front of you and it's vanished. A child who grows up on a small island or isolated community who was never told wouldn't even realise it had a gender. It is a taught area, with your sex being biological. Transgender activists want to tell you the biology has also changed along with the disturbed mind, as if belief can change every strand of your DNA to XX. And sprout breasts and a clitoris etc naturally in response.

Yes, that is what they want us to accept. However, feminists, for possibly the first time ever (artistic license), have provided a useful input (sorry feminists). They quite rightly point out unless you've always been female, had a female body both outside and in, been treated as a woman, had periods and maybe children, you can't come in half way through the party, zip up your winkle, lop off your bollocks and join the sisterhood as if you were there at day one. And returning to my initial point, if you can't feel how a friend or family member, or pet, feels, how can you know what a woman feels like to be if you're not a man? Not feeling comfortable as a man (the main official symptom) means like every other complex, you are not comfortable as yourself, and as a result, wish you were someone else. Superman, Jesus, a horse, or even a woman. Currently the Superman, Jesus and horse beliefs are still mental illnesses (unless they've wiped them as well since I checked), but strangely not women, even though all are equally provably wrong.

All forms of dysphoria are ultimately dissatisfaction with who you are, for a combination of biological and environmental reasons. In the past these were generally successfully treated with therapy, and as anorexia kills sufferers if a doctor agrees with a patient they are fat and they need to diet, they won't be lopping off their tits, but helping them to die, which in law is manslaughter. I would given the power ban sex change surgery as grievous bodily harm as well, as they are removing healthy organs causing lifelong potential problems and massive scarring. That aside, colluding with a deluded patient is normally considered malpractice, so persuading one to accept who they are is the universal therapeutic goal, and any other is dangerous and encouraging the patient to believe their delusion and ingrain it for life. Adding dangerous disfiguring surgery on top is to me a serious crime, but either way it is impossible for a man to know what it feels like to be a woman and vice versa, and singling that delusion out as OK from the long list of others is both irresponsible and will lead to further legalised errors in society, including the soon to come mixed changing rooms. Many men of course will be counting the days till they have free rein to enter female changing rooms and may even be the end of the porn industry as they will be able to see it in reality for nothing, but nothing comes without consequences and we know exactly the ones which have flowed from this already. Most people have common sense when they ask themselves and read with their heart, but often won't dare to share it with others as not many have such thick skins to cope with the venom shot at them from the establishment zombies. But you can push the line too far and this is where they have crossed it and will be pushed back. Sooner or later for all the reasons above and more it is inevitable.

Monday, 11 April 2016

The parasite formula

I have described various political mechanisms as parasites already, but Max Keiser just added the last piece to the formula to make it fully understandable, the parasite which fools its host into believing it needs it, similar to the sympathy for your oppressor found in Stockholm Syndrome. This now explains why so many people hold on to their parasites even after exposure, being fooled into feeling it somehow isn't really a parasite and is actually symbiotic, benefiting both sides, which of course when relieved of its shell reveals a typical tapeworm underneath no one on earth would want to be holding while sucking their blood.

Fear of uncertainty was the closest I got, centred in Britain over the fear of change and the unknown, meaning whatever hell they have got used to they'd rather keep it than face the mystery alternative, like leaving the EU or Scottish independence. It's also similar to the viruses which hide from the immune system and live in the host till they both expire such as herpes. It also covers the entire realm of delusional mental illness, transgenderism, dysphoria, anorexia, and all forms of obsession and addiction. It provides a formula (once one is created) to unlock the delusion wherever it is lodged, and free both the sufferer and their unintended victims, the people they attack around them because they are believed to be their enemy. Global warming fear and belief is the current flavour, with the emotional override of common sense being operated by the enemies in authority who know it to be untrue. But such a fear can easily be manufactured using Goebbels propaganda methods and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. They, like the wolf in sheep's clothing, false prophets and Antichrist/Satan work by getting your trust, creating a problem and then allowing themselves as bloodsuckers as the solution using the Hegelian dialectic just described, problem, reaction, solution, one no one would never have accepted without the false fear, which then locks on as a parasite they believe they need carbon taxes, which suck them and everyone else dry, as they believe they need their parasites for both themselves and their families to survive.

So in practice smokers think they enjoy slowly killing themselves, alcohol and drug addicts believe they need their poison to feel OK, and generally the enemy appears to them as the friend, while all others around them can see the truth. This is the general formula for all, and the next stage with no clear or obvious answers besides gradual and extended exposure to the truth will release them from this hold. But at least we know the diagnosis and cause, and it's entirely imaginary. And if it's not real it should be easier to cure.

Tuesday, 5 April 2016

Stage two, work with the energy of evil.

I have now reached a point where the great majority of information has been provided. It is now time to begin stage two. With the foundation built of a knowledge base, breaking the illusions of false consent through fraud, the next stage is to shift the negative energy exploiting it. This is the mechanism.

Everybody has a weakness. Negative energy/ies exploit this, and overshadow an individual and take over their personal ability to think in that weak area, whatever it is. The most familiar till now has been the paranoid schizophrenic, something I have worked with throughout my career, and found how many have almost identical delusions and voices telling them bad things about themselves and other people. Then I noticed it in other areas, extreme murderous Islam, Nazis, global warming promoters and followers, all affected by an apparent uniform groupthink, with a small group of genuinely evil leaders and millions of gullible weak followers who have de facto lost that portion of their conscious mind, like Star Trek's Borg, and speak as one. I regularly have conversations with those who consider themselves on the liberal left, and when inevitably they bring their friends in as mass bullying sessions against the bigot (me in this case) it's almost impossible to tell the difference between one and the other as they use the same routines and phrases with clearly little or no individual thinking.

This has come to the extreme with the bad people taken over by these forces. They are no different to the poor girl in The Exorcist who spit fire and worse, swear, blaspheme and are clearly overshadowed by a force far worse than anything normal in the human world. Even the 'nicer' people would still either carry out the same evils or support others doing so, whether making people die of cold by raising their energy prices or taking away their personal freedom by restricting or banning the use of 'personal transport', UN talk for cars.

So stage two of the mission is neutralising the bad energy. Whether or not people have undergone the normally lengthy process of learning even the important elements of the big picture, those still totally afflicted can be freed and shifted of the nastiness hanging over them in moments when the work has been done. So rather than the smaller group of neutrals or willing pupils, this works on virtually everyone. They needn't know we're doing it, want it, and nearly all think it's us who have the problem, as the evil force occupying their minds knows we are the enemy of evil so the human so affected will also. This is their problem and not ours, and by working with the most extreme and severely afflicted we can shift some or more of the energy that the rest will lift off as a result, like lifting a shroud from a heap of treasure. The treasure was always there underneath but not visible to outside or itself, but when the shroud is removed it becomes as if it was never there on it in the first place and the true and pure good beneath it will shine through again. We only need a partial level of this for the complete power to collapse, as of course once a minority are affected there won't be enough to maintain a general belief in evil and wrong ideas and concepts. The foundation will be gone and life can and will return to normal, less the belief in global warming, Jihad, men are able to turn into women, everyone is equally talented whoever they are (rather than equally valuable but unique), and every other concept of reality which has been covered by the dark lens or cataract of wrong thinking. The lens will be removed and the light will shine again.

Monday, 25 January 2016

Taking personal responsibility

As a therapist personal responsibility is a main foundation of my work. Carl Rogers, the founder of person centred therapy, created the seven point ladder of blaming others for everything in your life to taking full responsibility. Even if there are societal prejudices against one or more aspects of your self, this is not an excuse to fail or give up and carry the weight of the blaming for the rest of your life, but to know your abilities and push yourself over and over again till you succeed. Concepts of privilege simply point out we all start from somewhere different, but that should not stop anyone in a free country which stops discrimination by law from getting wherever they are capable of getting, female, black, disabled or gay should really not be a barrier.

Politics reinforces this sense of blame by inventing concepts taken from far left sociology and Marxism, which claim each social group begins the race with a handicap which inevitable makes it very difficult, sometimes impossible, to succeed purely based on who they are. Such delusions are the main reasons people come for counselling, and the purpose of it is to stop looking outwards at others and inwards to what you have to offer. It is the same as the parents who constantly compare their children with others, despite the fact no two individuals, even twins, are the same, and although everyone should be treated equal each is uniquely different and simply cannot perform the same as anyone else. This is all backed up with science and not open for discussion except the ways society can either restrict or improve an individual from completing their potential.

If you believe anything strongly enough you will then go on to both act as if it was true, and persuade others to accept it as well. But this is only a contagious mass delusion, and just because most people believe it never makes it right. Entire political parties and movements are built on such delusions, the imaginary view that even though such laws have changed society is still against blacks, gays and women. And even if there is prejudice this is not a reason for anyone to fail where they have the talent to succeed. A story I heard was about how women painters were overlooked in the 19th century, and pointed out even if they signed the pictures with initials rather than their full names you see the painting first and judge it on its quality. But if women accept they cannot be accepted as painters and composers, despite it being physically impossible to know the creator unless you were told shows how easy it is to pick up such mental viruses and take them on board as if real. Just because there is a handful of genuinely prejudiced people in all societies is no reason to act as though they have any actual power. The only power they ever have is what you give them, they have none themselves.

Therefore all politics based on such ideas is both false and dangerous. It leads to strikes, riots, repressive laws and worse. However good it feels to maintain the childish views that everyone deserves equal benefits in life it is not a fair world. We are not entitled to anything we do not have, besides the basics for survival with a welfare state. Anything else is not the state's official responsibility, however many make it so. Collectivism may work for a society with nothing, but once there is a structure where people can have a safety net for the poor and incapable the rest is down to their own efforts. The fact some inherit money and others have very little is just reality and nothing to do with anyone else. Just because another person can live without working is not a reason you should take it off them to make your own life better. That is called theft in normal circumstances, while giving your family money is a personal choice however unfair it may seem to those who do not have it. The alternative of taking it for the state is the only one which is infinitely worse, and it doesn't go back to the poor, it goes into the treasury with no accountability for where it ends up ultimately.

To sum up, all politics based on false views of privilege cause nothing but problems. Social engineering has no place in a free society as we employ politicians and civil servants with our taxes and votes, and none have the right to tell us how to live. If people vote for a totalitarian law then it is the people's fault for not realising they will actually suffer from the consequences as much as the people they have targeted it at. Choking the economy will affect it all whichever organ you shut off, much the same as a human body. Without free movement of people, speech and money you are no longer living in a free country, even when people have voted to restrict the freedom. The answer is education and not more power to the people who do not understand life or politics, and always make up the majority. Until they become fully educated as to how society really works, rather than how they think it should they will rule by the power of the majority.

Sunday, 17 January 2016

A summary of global warming

I have just been asked for a full summary of global warming for new arrivals who need to know everything from A-Z and realised I didn't have one. Diagrams and links to follow

Most of the main criteria are taken from the UN IPCC reports.

The main proposition: Added CO2, from the long term average of 260ppm (parts per million) upwards, could cause an amount of associated temperature rise which may cause more problems than benefits.

The exact amounts are the existing greenhouse effect of the atmosphere (official UN figures) which say from the added 33C from the effect, the majority comes from water vapour, and 1C comes from 260ppm of CO2. If you double CO2 is should add 1C, ie 520ppm would cause 1C extra and 1040 would add 2C. The UN claim the problems (mainly from rising sea level from melting land ice, and heatwaves) would start to outweigh the known benefits (increased food production, fewer wars, fewer deaths from cold and less energy usage) at around 2C.

Of course, CO2 would need to reach 1000ppm for this to happen, which is probably impossible, as with all the fossil fuel we are currently producing we have added 140ppm since 1850. Also CO2 does not last that long in the atmosphere, dropping out after a century or less. So when the media go crazy about possible warming, they fail to point out that the temperature has risen less than 1C since 1850. The temperature never remains the same, as it rises and falls between ice ages and smaller cycles, so as we have been coming out of once since the 18th century the temperature was already rising. Doing the simple equation, the rough existing amount is around a quarter to half the actual rise of 0.8C, therefore the amount from CO2 was 0.4-0.6C. Double that and you get a mean of 1C, exactly as predicted. Not anywhere close enough to cause problems.

So in that case why did the UN think it would be such a problem? Two words, positive feedback. This is mainly from the warming evaporating more of the ocean adding more water vapour to the atmosphere which is a serious greenhouse gas. The satellites measuring it confirm that it has not increased, and corroborates the lack of positive feedback. As no delay was expected it is reasonable to say there was no positive feedback and the water vapour could just as easily increase cloud cover, which blocks the sun and reduces the temperature, which has happened to a slight degree.

The UN state you cannot attribute individual weather events to warming, and there is no agreement overall that warmer weather causes more of them, only possibly more intense events. Also until 2001 the past records showed a number of warmer average world temperatures in history, which Michael Mann single handedly wiped out with his hockey stick diagram. The UN then revised it again where the two graphs were merged and averaged out. People can still use all three as it is not possible to prove which is correct, although the fact crops were grown all over the sub-Arctic regions which require a far higher temperature proves the northern hemisphere at least was warmer. The fact they can't prove whether the entire planet was warmer shows how rough proxy methods are, even the current temperatures have recently been revised in America.

The sea level is the most direct response to temperature. In the 20th century it rose 8 inches. After an ice age it can rise hundreds of feet. The current trend for the 21st century is a few more inches than the 20th. That directly relates to a stable and minimal temperature change and is far easier to measure than the world average temperature. That was measured by proxies (indirect indicators like ice cores and tree rings) before 1850 for the world, and thermometers until 1979 when they were supplemented by satellites. These vary in every time and location and the large areas with none need to be estimated. Currently there are four main temperature collections, which are not all in agreement. They measure land, sea and atmospheric temperatures and the difference between them and a previous point (anomaly). The oldest temperature record taken directly is the 17th century Central England record which shows very little warming and is the most reliable local record. In fact it is very hard to record average temperature, which is why they prefer to use anomalies, but the inherent measurement problems never go away. Other events such as weather and jet streams etc are also caused by far too many conditions to attribute to warming or any other single area. However the one linear correlation between temperature is with sea level. There is a known (generally, not exactly as the depth is questionable) amount of land ice on the planet. This requires a specific level of warming to melt, and that in turn flows into the sea causing a specific amount of sea level rise, which again is far easier to measure than temperature, although not exact. Therefore you can draw a linear graph between temperature rise, ice melt and sea level rise. As the rate of sea level rise has barely changed since the 19th century then maybe everything else they claim is irrelevant.

To summarise, there is a finite amount of fossil fuel on the planet. As we burn it it collects in the atmosphere, causes a small amount of warming and is replaced by more currently at a faster rate than it drops out. But overall we have seen CO2 rise by 50% and the associated temperature rise is both below the crucial 2C trend and shows a total absence of feedback. The incredible range of UN temperature projections for 2100, which we will not live to see, go between 1.5 and 6C. The chance of them missing with such a huge goalmouth is low, but totally irrelevant, as even if it falls none of us can ever know. It is not scientific to produce an experiment which cannot be completed, or the range is larger than the error margin, so it fails on all counts, and the 2015 temperature has fallen below the range they made altogether. CO2 continues to increase and the temperature has barely risen for 18 years. The media and politicians don't like you knowing that or their entire claims will fall apart.