Monday, 30 December 2013

Creating inflation

I only discovered this phenomenon very recently. Although prices have risen all my life at varying rates, it never occurred to me it was planned, but a nascent fault in most economies. When I was young France simply lopped a couple of zeroes off the Franc and no one minded or noticed except for needing to change the currency next time we went there.

Of course the hyperinflation which caused the second world war and currently decimating Zimbabwe is a symptom of the country's health, and the clearest indication of an economy's sharp decline. So technically there really isn't a lot going for inflation, unless you borrow money and then your wages rise faster than the interest on the loan. Of course this is cheating, as anyone who borrows clearly cannot afford whatever they borrow for or they would never pay more than they need to, so if you then manipulate the inflation through the blunt instruments of governments to direct it, that is also cheating.

Most people lose from inflation, as you would expect. You save, it gains interest, and inflation continues either above or below it. In Britain today the inflation outstrips the usual interest gained so everyone with fixed rate accounts is still losing money. Governments now say they fear deflation even more than inflation. They do agree high inflation is ruinous to the economy but diverge from what is now called 'best practice' as most western governments now plan inflation deliberately, manipulating interest rates and money printing to direct it as much as they can, normally to an 'ideal point' of 2%.

It is very simple. Your savings will be worth £98 for every £100 per year with 2% inflation, less any interest. Whatever happens interest wise inflation spoils forward planning, as whatever you own or save for becomes further and further from the original amount, unless you both have large amounts of savings and high enough interest rates to at least fill this gap. Borrowers do not pay what savers get in interest, but usually from 2-2000 times the difference so are not helped that much by a few percent of inflation either way. The planned 2% is never going to make any difference to non-mortgage loans at typical rates of around 10%, and a citizen's lowest rate on a mortgage is very unlikely to fall even close to 2%. So basically no one can benefit from even a low rate of 2% inflation, savers could profit in a good economy but currently losing, but whether planning oneself or an accountant, having to factor in any inflation will only make it harder to see ahead and make any arrangements, and doing the budgeting ahead would always rather work with zero, and ideally falling prices.

As banks cannot yet (it is being considered) reduce savings rates beyond zero (many people would risk not using them if they took money for storing it safely) then deflation means your £100 is worth more per year simply by the passage of time, at the rate of deflation. It is so rare and short lived I'm not aware of any test runs in history, but the arithmetic is known. It would also discourage borrowing as there would be no incentive to do so as it would effectively cost more to borrow than save the money over time. I am certainly not aware of any legitimate business or saver suffering from deflation, as even if rates were zero the money would still be technically worth more over time.

So, you ask, why do governments all aim for around 2%, bearing in mind only borrowers at very low rates ever benefit from any inflation as it eats away everyone else's like male pattern baldness. The standard phrase 'Follow the money' covers it all. Not being an economist I won't try and explain the complex ways bankers and businesses betting on a falling economy and winning benefit from any level of inflation (if you can hedge against it then you win the bet), and also explains why the City of London is dreading an improvement in the economy with consequent rise in interest rates and fall in inflation. All I can say is in any fight there are winners and losers, and the small percentage of winners from inflation are so powerful they control government policy and swing it their way except in the most democratic country in the world (and one of the richest, no coincidence there), Switzerland.

So, another reason governments do not give a damn about you, added to keeping interest rates low (which is 100% in their control), they use all the indirect methods to keep an undercurrent of inflation, which debases the currency worldwide (which is on the list of treasonous acts) and makes nearly everyone poorer. You can listen to all the excuses they give for doing so, but in the end none can add up as the end result is a shrinkage of your spending power.

The Ken Livingstone Principle

Ken Livingstone has managed to create an entire phenomenon by himself. It is not a new one, quite the opposite, but his operation was so clear and perfect I hope his name will be associated with it for ever more.

When given powers as Mayor of London he created a congestion charge for all traffic in the centre, and said he wouldn't extend it or increase the price. He did both soon after, and in an interview when asked why he broke his promises, simply replied 'Because I could'.

Now anyone brought up properly will know both the opportunity to do wrong without penalty or the chance of a penalty but doing it anyway hoping you won't get caught is the operation of a bad person. Yes, you can get away with whatever is legal, like treading on ants, lying to your heart's content and letting people down, but whatever happens to your victims your character goes backwards. You will get the equivalent of black marks each time you take advantage of the principle, and judgement day or not, whatever else you will know the day you die what you did and will be sorry for it. Then of course it will be too late.

If you view life as a test, these are traps set for free will. Yes, Ken knew perfectly well nothing would happen to him as having read the small print knew the list of tricks he could pull as Mayor, and exploited them to the full with no conscience. Yes, in practice he got away with it, but when he dies, what will be said about him at his funeral, and who will be sorry? Not me for one, he is dead to me already and all like him, as they should be to everyone.

Friday, 27 December 2013

"There is no debate"

 Following a twitterati reply 'There is no debate' yet again, I must provide a short climate summary.

The global warming theory arose in the 80s in its current form, and like now relied 100% on amplification of the 1C from a doubling of CO2 as that alone was totally harmless. With 25 years or so of observations it has been very easy to see the results of a 50% rise, and do not support amplification as the temperatures have risen far less than 1C meaning they cannot reach 2C or more when it rises the remaining 50%.

Two major errors were present from day one. Firstly they assumed positive feedback (amplification) even though it had never been observed in nature, and secondly the models they used to create the projections couldn't include the major negative feedbacks, ie cloud cover and aerosol dust. 25 years later the temperatures predicted by the models are all above reality, which was virtually inevitable if it wasn't possible to factor in the cooling influences. But satellites show an increase in cloud cover so by direct observation it is the most powerful feedback from the little oceanic evaporation added, and also the added CO2 was found to displace water vapour where it counted, which is also a coolant effect.

Therefore even if they find global warming does come back in 10, 20 or 30 year's time as some are trying to claim, firstly the only certainties are what we have already observed, and secondly it is not reliable to trust unknown futures at a distant later date. Even if temperatures rose again it would be certain natural causes reduce it and mean the overall average rise could never catch up to meet 2C or more by 2100, and there was no delay expected for the amplification so if it hasn't happened now there is no known physical process to hold it back.

But of course they're all certain and nothing anyone can observe is relevant, is it?

Wednesday, 25 December 2013

Proof Britain's economy has gone down the toilet

How can anyone prove an economy has gone down the toilet without some kind of massive reduction in spending power, huge inflation and a vast crash in the standard of living? Well of course they can't, but as these are exactly what I am demonstrating then unfortunately it is 100% certain in the last 50 years Britain's economy has totally bombed, and is now maybe a quarter of the average standard of living than we had in the 60s. Here are just three reasons which between them are sufficient to prove whatever people tell you we are sunk and sinking even faster.

1) Housewives. Yes, back when I was at school most women stayed at home and looked after the family. Not because they were discriminated against, but because a house was so cheap a man could normally pay for it with one income, and the woman did not have to work if she did not want to. And like most lottery winners and aristocracy, they simply chose not to.

In the 70s people gradually started finding it harder and harder, for whatever complex economic reasons, to buy a house, and as a result women in partnerships started having to work, despite the fact if they had young children it costs almost as much to have them cared for by other people than the woman actually earned, but that small sliver of profit (unless they were a professional) was still just enough to own their own property. This trend has increased and house prices still reach record highs compared to average income, going from around three to double figures in some places. This is the largest item anyone will ever buy, and if that is more expensive then there will be less left for everything else, ie relative poverty.

2) University fees. Until Tony Blair not only could anyone go to university who was capable, they also got a universal grant, rising for low incomes. Now it costs around £9,000 a year and rising, loaned or not. Why can't we afford free degrees (no, not the girl band) for all?

3) Free car parking. In the 60s apart from a few city centres and car parks you could park anywhere legal for nothing. Now if there are two shops or more in one place you usually can't. This money goes towards council budgets. Before the 80s they could all manage without charging residents and visitors to park. Now they say they can't. That means they do not have enough money.

To be balanced, of course some things are cheaper. Not many though, and certainly not enough to cover the major slice of income for 25 years on average to buy a house (while rents of course increase proportionally so makes no difference what you do). The few beneficiaries include electrical goods (how often do you buy a TV?), simply as technology has improved over time from valves to simple chips which use far fewer resources. But I'm struggling to think of anything else. Meanwhile energy and water costs are phenomenal, car insurance up five times as house insurance, public transport fares the highest in the world, and hardly any public toilets. The few random areas which have gone down are hardly able to even tilt the balance with such a heavy burden of all round price rises. Supertax up to 97% was indeed abolished, but was always a political policy as after around 50% any higher income tax reduces the total take as people leave, work less or find ways to avoid paying.

You would need a team of economists to explain these phenomena, but a few simple known reasons are the rise in population without more space, making land proportionally more expensive as more people are competing for the same amount, spilling over into energy costs as more people need new infrastructure which has to be paid for, and then increases demand, doing the same thing. Since dropping the gold standard average incomes have barely risen compared to inflation here or in America, so the speculators have taken that out of the economy for themselves. But other than those two major factors, the bottom line is so weak it is like reading the vital signs of a fit healthy young person who is now almost dying of malnutrition. It is not about which parties created these disasters as each replacement made things even worse, but what to do to get it back to how it could be, and none of them in power now or before will ever do that based on their current record.

Friday, 20 December 2013

How the process developed

It occurred to me it may be useful to describe the process I went through to discover all the information I now share here, also as it may help others follow a similar route and work out many events they have seen can all be connected and put together as a big picture.

I began as a student at school, studying sociology, civics, all the areas politics are involved, as well as being a great supporter of Tory policies except a total antipathy to the then Common Market, which I saw as a simple attempt at building an empire gradually, which is exactly what happened since then and continues inexorably into the future. The number of left wingers who basically claimed comfortable middle class people had no right to their privileges, and would campaign all they could to get them taken away, as if there was only so much and if some had more than others it was taking it away from everyone else. Many also claimed intelligence was not something you were born with, but was available to everyone as if each person was born to a society where they could amass IQ points just the way they amassed wealth in a free society (but not the one they wanted). I had never had my basic foundations of life challenged before, and being 16 was as undiplomatic and unsubtle as it was possible to be, including my opinions on racial differences right out in class in front of everyone. I was not embarrassed about my views so why would I hide them? (see a pattern forming here?).

Gradually of course I grew up and moderated my presentation, although the actual material was not any more than my personal observations. A law degree followed, where I learned the rules of legal process and evidence, law making and criminology. I saw how each study claimed it knew it all in the theoretical side, but in fact most provided one accurate (except for the far left ones attacking free society through ideology) piece of the whole picture, and when I did my marks doubled. Then I studied counselling and psychotherapy, and went out and became part of the real world. I shifted into the supernatural interests which was my pursuit of pleasure, but never happy with infringements on our freedom from what was then the EU and the injustices from vastly rising house prices and the effects of large scale immigration on limited resources.

I was not particularly focused on politics though, just aware of the worst elements but managing regardless, getting on with my own life and business and allowing others to do the same thing. If no one's hurting me why should I be concerned with their actions? I think the turning point came when I learnt about global warming around the 90s, and all it was to me was an interesting disaster theory claiming the temperature and consequently sea level would rise and turn the planet into a totally different place. I wasn't scared, more fascinated, although till then every single similar claim by professionals and amateurs alike never happened. Not once, ever. But the formula seemed basic and could be watched from time to time to see how it was getting on. No more than that. A few years passed and back then they only published the high end guesses, yards of sea level and a good few degrees of centigrade rise. But then nothing seemed to happen. That CO2 kept on rising, but the climate trends seemed to be levelling off. By then I had the internet and started looking up data myself to see why the difference between the claims and the results were so wide.

What I discovered kicked off my legal mind, and started building a case, like my barrister parents, with everything on each side and then comparing them for a verdict, ie judge, jury and both counsels. It didn't actually take me very long to complete the mission, as a judge who kicks out a case through lack of evidence, the jury have no need to assess it as there is not enough evidence to consider to gain a guilty verdict, ie mankind is guilty, after a full and fair trial, beyond reasonable doubt. But since then my natural response was to tell as many people I could what I'd discovered, as the taxes and restrictions across the developed world were destroying the economy for absolutely no reason. Looking for more evidence to convince (it still doesn't, except long term face to face work on an individual basis) I then discovered the interconnected plans and network creating this illusion, basically to create the taxes and restrictions no one would accept otherwise.

I then completed the circle, as the very destroyers I came across in the 70s, the anti-Semitic (sorry, anti Israel), envious, nihilistic babies were now the very people working for the creators of global warming in the name of rebuilding western society. Until global warming was invented their views were on the fringe and as I did so much earlier were universally rejected and condemned by ordinary people. Now their wishes are mainstream and even though the followers genuinely believe in this as they are not scientifically qualified, the leaders are and know perfectly well CO2 is almost totally unable to raise the temperature by more than a degree or so as it reduces its power with volume, eventually reverting to null, ie no longer able to cause any additional warming. I was not fighting the global warming scam, but a scam to allow the very people who wanted to destroy everything I valued in society and replace it with a Maoist-Stalinist collective slavery worldwide.

I then learnt the methods and philosophies behind them, saw how each organisation worked together and how they kept out the public, and completed the entire picture from their leader, David Rockefeller, downwards, and admitting exactly what they were doing online and in print on numerous occasions removed any doubts that was what they were doing by admission rather than implication. I learnt the tricks they used to con people, the ones described in full by Goebbels who created the modern methods of propaganda, and divide and rule. Now whenever a politician speaks I know if they're with us or against us, as you simply can't speak a foreign language (Carbonspeak) without being foreign. No one else uses such terms as 'carbon footprint', 'clean energy', 'sustainability' etc, as they don't mean anything really, so why would anyone normal use a term which was only created to manipulate the weak minded? Then finally after sharing my findings for years online, with a small band of followers, 95% of whom had worked this out already and just had help with some details, Russell Brand's call for a revolution and Anthony Davis's appeal to London on LBC Radio what would we do for one, I decided to put every single thing I'd learnt down in one place and use pyramid marketing to spread it. That is where a pyramid scheme works, as if you tell someone a piece of information you are doubling it, and if each person then tells another it keeps on doubling till enough people know to break the system just by being able to see through it.

Nothing is complicated. Magicians divert your attention and lie to you, but you have paid to see it and know it's an illusion. The same tricks can and are used to steal your money and rights, like the three card trick and mock auctions, and these slimeballs simply do it on an international organised basis, running the world exactly like the Mafia, and applying protection rackets and threats in no more a sophisticated way than in 1920s Chicago. I am telling you as someone who simply observed the tricks and worked out how they were done, and then tried and tested them and read quite a few descriptions from the tricksters themselves to confirm I had indeed seen exactly what they were doing. But being the minority, and with authority being the bluntest weapon they use, the messages are void unless either presented from someone with the same level of authority, or spread in such volume enough people see through the tricks to no longer be fooled by them.

Global warming just represents the worst ever example in human history. No other scandal has ever been on such a scale, and as a single world government and carbon currency is the ultimate aim (all in UN documents and actually printed in The Guardian of all places, considering they support it) it has to be the greatest scandal in history. But take it away and we still have banker's corporate fascism, market manipulation, educational fraud etc which are independent of the entire scam, but these are all very simple old-fashioned skimming and cheating exercises only possible when the governments work for the corporations at the expense of their subjects, much like the current fear in the City of London bankers and brokers the economy is recovering, as they only do really well when it isn't as otherwise they have to work and take risks to earn it just like everyone else. They all buy into global warming as if you're not in you're out of everything, and the system would spit out any company speaking out against it as that is the only voice allowed by virtually every government in the world under UN diktat.

Add to this the old-fashioned leftist restrictions on freedom of speech, attacks on civilised society- the nuclear family, morals, education, pretty much everything which allowed us to become some of the strongest countries in the 20th century, only to lose it a decade or to after. These destroyers want to take away everything from a free society, partly through envy and partly through fear, combined with a failure to mature and still believe the childish Utopian views everything can be fixed the way they think it should be. One thing they all have in common is they can or do not look beneath the surface, so if house prices go up they feel rich. Tell them instead of looking at what they're selling why not look at what they're buying, as like shares their house is not worth anything until they sell it, and unlike shares they need to replace it with another as they can't live in a house of money. Suddenly they discover if the house they may want to buy when they move costs so much they can no longer afford it, and the more their own rises the fewer they can afford as they have gone up more, the secondary level of knowledge becomes apparent to them. Just like claims ice is melting despite the temperature rise not being enough to melt anything.

Scratching and looking beneath the surface of others' claims is the most simple and useful method in disarming the tricksters. They know how to misrepresent, make generalities, and lie under their authority as experts. Professional and intelligent does not mean good, goodness is evenly distributed among every single person, and to throw in an aside as people with Down's Syndrome have a different chromosomal makeup, appears to be almost universal among them whatever their backgrounds. Therefore given a test and a representative sample maybe you could find the good-evil spectrum is mainly genetic, as I have never come across anyone with Down's with a bad bone in them. But otherwise the bell shaped curve of most being in the middle with a few at either extreme applies, and given the power in brains and energy in evilness the combination is deadly. Use that intelligence to lie and cheat, knowing perfectly well the great majority of society aren't as bright as you are and will believe you, especially if you work as a well-oiled team (Mafia), the sky's the limit.

So, my mission and yours as you're reading this is to shine the light of simple testable truths into the mist of confusion all around us. You will be insulted, vilified, and hear names you didn't think people could imagine, but you'll have one edge over everyone else, you are doing the right thing. The key to unlocking everything.

Thursday, 19 December 2013

Divide and rule

Machiavelli, Goebbels, Bernays, all the great leaders of men who could manipulate minds and hearts, Sun Myung Moon, L. Ron Hubbard, they all used the same methods which isolate individuals from the good influences of friends and family, leave them alone and offer to replace them.

Up till teenage the influence of the parents dominates the lives of children. Until a certain age most believe their parents know everything, and become shocked when they discover the first question they could not answer. Gradually children become more self sufficient, but the family normally always exerts the most influence, especially in politics and religion which tend to be as much from the environment they grew up with than making their individual minds up.

So, as the Jesuits (who I now hear are on board this current campaign as well) say, start them young and own them. Basically. The national school curriculum has global warming on it, and teachers who have added the doubts have at least on one occasion been reported and threatened with the sack for not sticking to the message. I imagine holocaust denial would get much less of a reaction from the authorities as trying to derail the greatest ever campaign to own an entire generation's minds.

The first element of the simple version for schools is the carbon footprint. Despite only producing a few percent of the total, they simply measure the meagre amount man releases and tell the poor innocent children who trust every single word the teachers tell them (like Jews are pigs and dogs in Arab schools, what chance do they ever stand?) everyone must reduce their carbon footprints. But they can't as they aren't in charge of the household activities, so they must tell their parents to. No different from a vicious wife lying about her ex husband to stop the children wanting to see him, the authorities are getting the children to rat on their own parents for something which is directly related to their own welfare. Any parents who then turn down the heating and go on fewer holidays, as no doubt many will, are threatening their children's health at home and spoiling the quality of their lives by following the classic Soviet move of restricting travel. This is no different to any cult or tyrannical regime. Even if global warming was real (we'll never know so forget about it, we'll all be long gone before the definitive answer emerges) is it ever justified to set children against their parents as the dangerous enemy to save any consequences? I would say using basic morals not.

Monday, 16 December 2013

Looking for trouble

Technically a pathogenic branch of confirmation bias, when science and public mental health overlap, and led by rent-seeking third rate hacks suddenly propelled to the media and government realms, if there is any mission involved to collect money and power then every event within that mission must be consistent with the message.

Therefore, despite even the great god UN itself stating every few years 'You cannot attribute individual events to global warming', the slew of papers released every day and collected by Greenpeace and governments alike almost all do just that. From weather conditions, ie warmer than usual, wetter than usual, dryer than usual and windier than usual, to local conditions, ice melts and drying lakes etc, these are secondary results of not just global warming, but firstly need to be large scale and long term (ie raising the world annual average minimum) and secondly need serious warming to happen, ie above 2C, not 0.7C, which is not detectable.

They take the heresy of induction, generalising from the particular, combine it with hypocrisy, don't use weather (unless we need to), and roll it into a taco made of insincerity by moaning when it's colder and snowing more both wide scale and longer term, it's actually caused by warming, and when it isn't getting warmer (honestly) the heat is 'missing' somewhere.

Think about all these examples. They share one thing in common. If you watch any interview with a guilty criminal (ie caught red handed on video) in reality or even in fiction, the way they manoeuvre against the questions from outright denial 'It wasn't me' to confusion 'I can't remember' to diversion 'I saw who did it', and if the interviewer is able, a final confession once confronted with all the evidence collected catching them red handed. All they did was waste everyone's time and the likelihood of such a routine when your car is not on the insurance database and they filmed you jumping a red light is almost enough not to even bother interviewing these scrotes at all and simply setting a court date and reading it out to the magistrates without them even needing to attend.

The only difference is we know what they've done so can pee ourselves laughing when the creep who dropped a bag of drugs or stolen goods behind a fence and then says he didn't, despite being covered with their fingerprints and filmed from above, rather than have to listen to a stream of people expected not to do it, churning out endless manure (except manure is actually useful in its place) and because most people 'don't do scientific method' simply is accepted blindly because they are qualified to lie as much as they please as people trust them.

Operating the Ken Livingstone method, lying because you can get away with it, is called bad xinxing in Falun Gong, the Chinese method of spiritual development, as the students are given powers only when they don't use them to cheat and beat others without them, or even show them off for personal ego. Eastern philosophy at least recognises the value of using your power wisely and fairly, as does the Christian Church also teach leadership as a duty not a power trip. Knowing your position of authority allows you to basically say black is white (cooling is warming is identical in nature and dishonesty) as if you say it is people with higher levels of trust assume it's true, while the bright and worthy (always the top level of the fat bottomed pyramid, so too few to be heard) know all this since the age of three but the masses are deaf to us as they only accept a retraction from the person who shafted them, which is the same as expecting the entire staff of the Italian Mafia to hand themselves in and give up their ways. But unlike the Mafia, every single person can work out someone else is lying as if your four year old child told you 'Mummy, it's getting warmer as it's snowing' you'd laugh and smack their arse (or something, I don't have children), but when James Hansen tells you exactly the same thing, you put the heating down.

Don't be like a four year old, as if an adult takes advantage of them you know what you'd call them. If a scientist does exactly the same to you as you think like a four year old, then they are exactly the same thing.

Predict nothing and trust nothing predicted

Since Genesis man has been looking ahead, and often not just claimed to know what would happen in the future, but many with exact dates. One (or probably two) things all have had in common, I certainly can't think of an exception, none have ever happened outside a linear or planned system. The nature of life is guaranteed to be chaotic, so unless someone goes to work and comes home regularly or a planet circles the sun, outside such systems nothing else is meant to be seen coming or should be. The second element in common is not a single person giving such predictions are to be trusted. Either they are qualified, so know they are lying as this is around week one of science, philosophy and logic, or nutjobs. Either way they are as worthy of being relied on as the biblical wolf in sheep's clothing or the great liar Satan themselves, who hides his lies in a truth sandwich and bullets in good deeds.

The nature of the prediction is irrelevant. Do you really think the wackos who predicted the arrival of Planet X in 2003, Harold Camping who predicted the end of the world twice within one year, the Met Office who get every season wrong which is actually far more statistically significant than getting half right like tossing a coin (warm v hot, wet v dry, six months ahead, pretty pointless even bothering really as no one could or needed to rely on it), and UN climate predictions over a century ahead.

They are all equal bullshit, and the messengers equal bullshitters. If you read a little science the trumpet-shaped cone going into the future becomes so wide a few days ahead it clearly states trying to see any outcome beyond is like dropping a match in the sea and dropping a helicopter the next day to find it based on a computer model using all the currents. Yes, they claim they can do it, but only because most people believe them, even though what they are attempting to do is impossible and always will be, as whatever technology will probably manage, levitation, translocation,free energy, all theoretically possible, it can and will never be able to bend time enough to see what is ahead as it has not happened yet.

Therefore if you see a prediction, treat it as a pile of dog mess on the pavement and walk around it, its nature is just the same as is its producer, a dirty dog.

Banks and brokers work against the country

This is actually less of a statement of blame, but a statement of structure. The way western countries are structured banks and brokers do best when the economy itself is at its very worst. Government policies however are able to adjust these balances but when they do they swing in favour of one but against the other due to the nature they have created behind its structure. So when I read yesterday in the Mail:

"City fears an early interest rate rise as jobless total expected to fall and edge closer to 7% figure"

Mail on Sunday

What it went on to explain was, while interest rates are at 0.5% (and as I've already explained, makes life worse for 65-75% of the population) and unemployment is high and the economy is down, The City of London (ie banks and brokers) do their best. This means we have two entirely independent economies, ours and theirs, and they are in polar opposition to each other. The risks involved investing with almost free money are at a minimum, their cash input is guaranteed and constant, and as a result can manipulate the markets by buying on a rising market at such levels as to raise the market directly by their actions. They are literally getting money for nothing and raising commodity prices of all items directly through doing so. The fact the Bank of England said it will end is almost a miracle in itself, as they don't ever have to. America may not as so far there has been a reversal of the Ben Bernanke plan to reduce QE since he left and the ultra-Keynesian Janet Yellen took his place in the Federal Reserve. She won't be stopping soon or probably ever as she believes in it explicitly.

But those are just local details. The bottom line is the current way Western economies are set up, with banks able to speculate with depositor's money and little or now leverage limits (the amount they can lend compared to their total assets) the worse the economy, like flies on a corpse, the better they do.

Unless something fundamental is changed, whenever the economy starts picking up and their easy pickings, like vultures, are under threat, all the banks need to do is to get together and do something to wreck the economy again, ad infinitum. And the new EU rules mean next time they get into trouble they won't get bailed out by the taxpayers who will lose indirectly but certainly, but the depositors themselves, after the successful trial in Cyprus where no blood was shed.

Only the Angel of Death can benefit from the weakness of his host.

Thursday, 12 December 2013

Forming a big picture

Although this site is divided up into very specific posts, there is also a single big picture, the one I saw which allowed me to put each new and past event into it, and almost instantly know who went where and how each new event fitted into it. I will take some earlier points and put some of them together to see how it is built up.

Low interest rates
Politicians are not our friends
Use your own discretion

These are two connected issues and a general one which applies to both them and all similar situations. Low interest rates are proven to benefit less than 25% of British people, proving beyond any doubt the politicians (all parties, and in America) are helping the bankers, brokers and themselves at our expense. This cannot be in doubt, as some people paying less on their mortgages are the lucky fallout of such policies but so few in comparison with savers and pensioners who have absolutely no safe form of investment open to them make absolutely no difference, especially when the time comes to sell their house and they lose the entire amount saved buying the new one as they are buying and selling on the same market inflated by said rates. And using your own discretion applies every time two politicians tell you the exact opposite thing is right. Only you can decide which is right, and as a result you never needed them to tell you in the first place as anyone can learn the issues and work it out already.

Ponzi and pyramid schemes
Electric cars
Hutchison Rabbit
Wind and solar power
Costs and benefits

These again are all aspects of the same thing, the useless product marketed to collect other people's investments and run. And of course using your own discretion when you see a product which doesn't look quite up to scratch for its purpose usually reveals its true nature as well. Rather than think of a good business idea, take a risk and put money into it, a pyramid scheme and the like simply collects money at one end and hands it out at the other until it runs out and they piss off with it. Very few even dress up as anything else, pyramid schemes are unable to, even with products, as if you need to pay membership of anything up to £5000, and are paid more for bringing in new members then it can't be anything else, and despite now being illegal they still run and are as crowded as they ever were, despite many TV programmes secretly (and openly) filming them. Some people understand what they are, meaning they also know if they get in early they still could win, and it's easier than working for it. Wind turbines are the same. Think about it. When does the wind blow? Whenever it wants. How fast? Ditto. What do you do to store the power? Nothing.

Just like with low interest rates, you can look up monthly contribution from wind turbines, and then the costs involved. Once you take the meagre wattage produced, often in single figures per unit, you must then factor in the fixed and variable costs as with all accounting. Generally speaking they use power from the grid they are connected to for starting up, slowing down, heating and turning to the wind. That comes off the power output. Then they need a permanent power station as backup, which produces constant power as they all must. That could do the job on its own anyhow so you don't even need the turbines as they waste all the power the turbines produce unless it's needed at that specific time.

Basically wind turbines fulfil absolutely no useful benefit at all. Take away the backup and they barely add any power, much is wasted when they do, so the net power actually used is so little compared to the costs they are, like the Hutchison Rabbit or shares in a Ponzi company, totally worthless. And I haven't even factored in the subsidies paid to land owners, including 'idle time' which can be 40 times more than for the power itself. Offshore maintenance is also rather costly. As is building an entirely new grid to do precisely nothing for the total power supplied.

If there is basically any product or investment offered that looks a bit funny, do your research (the internet allows a thorough search of any of them nowadays), and once you learn to rely on your discretion you will be as repelled from these as much as a turd in the street.

Sunday, 8 December 2013

Running an economy backwards

This is borrowed over, as anything relevant can be here including guest posts if anyone wants to send me anything themselves. I read this yesterday, maybe by Max Keiser but not relevant, that explained the British economic policy clearer than anyone else could.

Imagine pulling a piece of string. It will follow you everywhere and move as far as you do if you do, but if you then turn and push it then you will move and it will hardly go anywhere. Stay in the same spot and keep pushing harder and harder and it can and will never go any further as physics dictates what you are doing is impossible.

The economy works the same way. I have already written about growth, and in week one economics they explain the size of an economy is the total assets. I know using accounting tricks you can cheat and include debt, but that does not really mean it has grown, it just means they want to hide bad performance. So using official criteria, not government puff, an economy grows based on physical added value. This includes natural resources like North Sea gas or oil, manufacturing and added working hours as they earn more through, as Marx put it, the sweat of their brows which was all the working class had to offer. You don't really create growth through debt, any more than unpaid profits, however likely they may or may not be, as technically they are liabilities not assets. Unlike Enron's version, which is fraudulent and not meant to be taken on by their prosecutors as they realised it was a good idea for them to use.

Pulling the piece of string is the only way to move it directly, so are the genuine means to economic growth. There are no other means to grow an economy as the accounts must get a higher bottom line or it's just rearranging slices of the same cake endlessly without making new ones. Therefore the British growth model, based on borrowing and spending, is the same household model which caused the credit crash and left many people with five and six figure personal debts as well as any mortgages. Yes, they spent a lot of that money, but it wasn't theirs, they just took it from somewhere else, spent it, and at best replaced it if they managed to pay it back. The money supply grew as the interest was paid, in other words, it caused inflation as more money had been put into the economy with no additional production. A proper economic model is to create more so people earn more and spend more. That, like pulling a piece of string, is the only way to move an economy upwards, anything else is just moving it around in the same place, and the only reason Britain is growing now is through debt and inflation, which caused the second world war when it happened in Germany. That is the way we are going, and no other direction till off a cliff, the only known destination of running an economy backwards. It is the same as pushing the brake to move a car, or cut a cake into a hundred pieces and spend the rest of your life rearranging it hoping one way will do it. The only difference here being it's harder to see what they're doing and they can throw smoke and mirrors up in front of it to divert your attention, like using inflation as growth. No way Jose, that's fraud, nothing else.

An open climate goal

I always knew this was the case but didn't have any special quotes in particular, but this one has just been sent to me, from the godfather of warming himself, who convinced Bill Clinton to tell the UN it was a serious issue, James Hansen.

"Although I’ve spent decades working on [climate models], I think there probably will remain for a long time major uncertainties, because you just don’t know if you have all of the physics in there. Some of it, like about clouds and aerosols, is just so hard that you can’t have very firm confidence."
Anyone not familiar with climate and related models, think of accounts. You need everything to balance, including management account budgets (I passed an exam in it, so I do know), where you do a year's projection, ie a model. If you for some reason don't have the sales box (back then it was still in books or boxes) you have to find it, or you can't get audited. What Hansen has said here, which I knew to be 100% certain, was models cannot factor the two main coolants, clouds and aerosols (dirt and dust) into their projections, so without the two major coolants (from the same source as positive feedback, oceanic evaporation, and from volcanoes and burnt fuel etc) the result is guaranteed to be too warm as you've simply ignored the coolants. That is like Enron adding profits from the future they'd never made to balance the books, or a firm needing a tax loss 'forgetting' most of its sales. Either way it's false accounting, and wherever you go in the world is a crime. What difference is there in leaving out two sales accounts in a climate model, getting a false positive, and then people wonder why 20 years later all the models (there were over 70) ran many times too hot? This is a direct and open confession it is physically impossible to model ahead properly as they simply can't factor in around half the data. As the entire world's climate policy is based totally on these failed and inadequate models, which have demonstrated themselves useless after 20 years as they all assumed positive feedback despite water evaporating being equally able to form clouds as vapour, which current findings from the present show exactly that. Whatever else is or isn't known, this alone is enough to kill the entire global warming proposition. Within all the material, its very founder also slipped the truth in, they can't forecast the effects in models. Add the twenty years of demonstrable proof, and the game is over.
 I will add a comment made today by an engineer. He could make a 150mm steel bridge across the Thames as long as no one actually tried to use it. This is the same as the models, they only work when not tested by reality. And how could anyone test their models without a tardis in 2100?

Thursday, 5 December 2013

The one guarantee, you have been heard

Continuing from the earlier entry, I think one point, the actual moral of the story, requires its own to stand out. The lone voice which sees the emperor's naked is either ignored (99% of the time) or not, but they are always noted.

This means, if nothing else, if you know something others do not, they will slate you, call you a murderer or worse (yes, I've heard worse), and may even avoid you entirely as a result, but if you know you are right at least you have told them. This means, like the credit crash and other little but definitely predicted disasters destined to happen, the handful who spoke out could not divert the entirely voluntary storm, but they would teach the sheep and idiots a lesson.

They are so full of hubris in either not believing there is nothing wrong, or there is something wrong when there is not, nothing besides the actual event happening can ever change their minds. If it was possible for bankers to lend people 10X or more of their income, and do it at a 40X plus leverage rate (as opposed to what used to be a tightly regulated 3 and 7), on top of excessive offers for personal debt which was then sold off in anonymous packages of structured AAA rated (faked) financial instruments, normally anyone with a three digit IQ would have worked out if you simply break the rules of a society the system will unravel.

About three people did (Vince Cable, a sacked broker and me, to my knowledge), and I as a result now earn around a third as much as I would have otherwise, as do all my family including the ones who have since died. I have lost many thousands of pounds directly due to the utter stupidity of the public standing back and accepting an economy normally associated with a pisshole like Zimbabwe or Gaza, the same acceptance of sky high energy and travel bills to protect them from global warming after they're dead.

This mentality is lethal, as it allowed concentration camps, Enron, Bernie Madoff, the South Sea Bubble, Church Indulgences, years of Libor fixing, and those are just the ones which got busted we now know about. It ignores every warning and assumes the crooks are the good guys and vice versa. I can't change that, all we can do is tell them, make a note to record it, and crow when they find we got it right.

The fact is, much of the time, the consensus usually means they are wrong, just like today's record low interest rates skimming billions from the economy as long as they stay in place. And no one does a thing about it.

Wednesday, 4 December 2013

Hoaxes, proof how easy it is

Yesterday a TV station interviewed random people in the street about a non-existent news story they invented, and filmed them accepting every single word without question. I'm sure with a representative sample a varying degree of plausible and less plausible stories could be invented, and then record the number of people who wouldn't believe them. It's gone on from day one, the South Sea Bubble, War of the Worlds, even the April fool story about the spaghetti tree. The thing they all had in common was most people blindly accepted them all, and the government and business know this. Most people are either too dim or programmed to accept what they are told by the media and governments, or too busy to care.

Having demonstrated the phenomenon, which is hardly a surprise to anyone, why not exploit it for money, power and worse knowing the few not drunk at the party can never communicate to the others, only the publican can tell them there was no alcohol in the drink and they are really sober, and they never do. Right now two banks have just been fined for collusion in interest rate fixing for many years in the Libor scandal. Fraud, obtaining financial benefit by deception, is a serious crime and they are known to have gained millions- I don't even know if the fine was smaller, in which case they even profited from their crime. Except it was not a crime as the government changed the law somehow to excuse them. What's more, as in yesterday's lesson, who gets that fine? Not the people who lost it, or you and me either. It goes the same way as all taxes, into a black hole and never seen or traced again.

Even when there is evidence to the contrary, growing by the year, no one shifts. The evidence will eventually build up until so great it outweighs the illusion, but by then it's usually too late and the money is gone. After 17 years of no global warming, many official sources have now said it may not warm for another 30, but this does not mean it is not warming. That is a level above Martians landing, or fake investments- it is a lie we could just work out given the hard effort put in, but now when the evidence is failing them, they lie again against both the existing new evidence but falsifying the future against the rules of logic. That is literally saying black is white, and not only did the people believe lie one as it was admittedly damn hard to figure it out as such, when they provide lie two to delay the ending of lie one, which breaks every rule of life itself (check out doublethink from 1984, holding two opposing opinions at the same time) no one even thinks to question it.

Forget Boris Johnson's IQ and other's he speaks about, they have proved beyond every possible fail mark the public are far, far stupider than even the toughest estimates have demonstrated. The simple hoax, the formula being a plausible lie plus the authority to accept it- even at a level of 'my wife was killed in South America' by Nasty Nick Bateman in the first Big Brother, plausible as his authority was he was a family member, and there is never a sensible reason people should make these sort of things up, to anything the media publish or politicians claim. This is known since biblical times and is described as the lies of Satan, but when the shine comes off the original story (as it never existed it must eventually), adding a new coat of paint on top which is beyond plausible, and the sheep still flock in acceptance the people are so stupid they deserve every treatment they get. But not the minority of innocent victims who saw through it all the time, and were summarily dismissed by the sheep and called murderers on top.

Like the Germans who passively accepted the concentration camps, the willing slaves are as guilty as the masters who programme them. Unless and until the masses can realise the authorities want to destroy our lives, or more accurately, don't care if they destroy our lives in getting what they want, our lives will be destroyed further and further, and each new story will arise as the old one runs out of steam and be just as plausible and accepted as the last. Ad infinitum. Latest example

Tuesday, 3 December 2013

They don't get it, literally

I just read yet another pathetic leftist post on Facebook which called to attack the wealth of the rich as it was the only way to bring about equality, or whatever other reasons for interfering even more with a free society, and as I have said already, this is an entirely false view of economics, as each person earns independently of others, and as such their wealth is not 'taken' out of the economy, but is simply part of it, each added pound is an addition to the economy, the only genuine cause of growth (unlike debt and quantitative easing propping up our disastrous current economy as if moving the decimal point cures the patient), added value.

So, by taking more and more taxation from the rich, like quantitative easing, it is not simply redistributed, as the socialists claim, but it is spent. Yes, all those billions in extra tax above 40%, which arguably is quite enough to take from any hard working individuals does not get donated, like a charity, to the poor, but spent, however the government wants to. Of this, only a tiny fraction goes back to the poor on means tested benefits while the rest (minus public sector salaries, which are earned by the individuals, not given) goes on:

Defence- automatic benefits to the unemployed and unfit to work- pensions (which used to be earnings related, giving more to the richer as they paid more into it in tax)- infrastructure projects like railways and roads- subsidies- climate projects, and basically whatever they want to spend it on, but mostly not the poor. Only means tested benefits, tax credits and housing subsidies go to the poor from richer people's taxes, but all the rest goes on both essential services as described, and optional projects, like the possible new estuary airport and vastly expensive new London buses. In the end a small fraction goes back to the poor, but would be unlikely to get even more however high the tax take as they spend it as they wish for any excess above the basic essentials, and whoever is in power, even if communist, cannot be forced to return your hard earned money to any good cause, as it is in their hands to decide.

Sunday, 1 December 2013

Stating the bloody obvious, or am I?

Only in the last couple of years has the term 'printing money' come into use, probably the first time since post 1st world war Germany, and we know what happened there as the almost inevitable result. And where else did the result happen with other causes? Zimbabwe. That example of taking a thriving and successful country and turning it into a nuclear waste without the radiation. I must sneak in a small dig at Obama who is doing the same to America as Mugabe did to Zimbabwe simply as I will now demonstrate its veracity, but that is just an aside.

I will add debasing currency is still part of the long list of how to commit treason, and if anyone chooses to try as a result I welcome the result. Let's sort out some specifics on what is poetically called 'quantitative easing' and remove all the preconceptions.

First and most, they are not putting real money into the economy.

How can they? Where would it come from and what would it represent in capital terms? As a failed accountant (I still took the foundation year so know a bit) the assets column must balance with the cash. Fail. QE simply pumps up the cash without changing the assets. Not just pointless but normally criminal. Exactly what Enron did and look at the results.

Had they been actually putting cash in the economy it would be from tax revenues and the like (I passed economics!). Alaska is the only current example of this, every person gets a cut of the oil share as the company is state owned and every resident who qualifies gets an annual dividend. This is real money as it relates directly to the annual company earnings. QE however is adding numbers without any new earnings.

The proof: If QE grew an economy (as does Alaskan state enterprise) then the money could be paid directly into the citizen's bank accounts. It is not. Where does it go? Back to the state of course. This got Bernie Madoff in jail as unlike Enron's creative accounting, where future profits got dragged into the present, although they never existed, Madoff ran a pure Ponzi scheme which simply moved around money in a cake which never changed size. This is a Ponzi scheme as all the government is doing is shifting exactly the same money around different accounts and telling us it's giving us a donation. Imagine a government really could create unlimited months of billions of pounds or dollars as a donation? We wouldn't need oil or gas revenue, or even taxes, they could just create all the money we needed, as could the third would, who wouldn't need to borrow real money but just print it.

Of course they bloody well can't.

So QE is not real a) as it adds nothing to the economy b) if it was they could pay it to us directly

Since 2013 this coin has grown another side. Although technically all governments can, like the Co-op (until now anyway) share their profits and return them to the citizens, no others have. Just because only Alaska does doesn't stop any state or country in the world, after all, it is our money anyway. But they don't. But now, for the first time ever, they can take it out. Yes, when the country is in debt, they can now take it from the bank accounts directly, as Cyprus has, but they are not putting it back anywhere. Since Cyprus the EU has made this law for every member of the Euro, while New Zealand quickly followed and wrote it into their law. I am pretty sure this precedent will be followed very quickly, while Alaska's is only having its first vote elsewhere for a citizen's bonus this winter in Switzerland, around 40 years since Alaska created it.

I have already explained why QE happens, as it is to reduce the debts of the banks and governments as it forces the interest rates they pay (not us, Britain currently has rates up to over 5000%) to almost zero, and means they can borrow and speculate and make so little profit to make it a success compared to if they made 0.7% and paid even as little as 1%. On a few million a day that is a huge difference. But QE does not help you or me, it only helps the government and bankers as no one else can borrow at base rates and carry such risks to profit from it.

The rest of us are shafted to allow them to do so. This is not a helpful policy, it is burglary.

Saturday, 30 November 2013

Law and science

It's not often I have anything worth writing in my own field of law as it's all been done already (besides the thesis proposal I never got to write) but with all this rule breaking over global warming people need to know the legal process of criminal trial, and why it is so vital never to convict an innocent person and how it is designed to best avoid it.

Obviously the worst possible result of a criminal case going wrong is convicting the wrong person, as well as the sentence they will have the criminal record, and in the worst case scenario death. So British (not Roman) law was designed to avoid this happening, by firstly allowing a full testimony from both sides, prosecution and defence, and trial by decision beyond reasonable doubt. That means (as in the Scottish verdict of 'not proven') including where the jury believe they did do it, but there is not enough evidence. It is not the end of the world to let any criminal off, and most are never convicted of the majority of their crimes anyway, so missing some after trial rather than before it barely adds to the figures. In fact new criminals tend to be put off by a trial, and not do it anyway (as deterrence is the major reason for trial as it makes society safer) so it worked regardless. Career criminals just do it again and usually get convicted sooner or later.

Of course below crimes there are many other black marks on our characters from the laws of society- failing exams, sacking for misconduct, defamatory statements etc, which all have civil proceedings to remedy. And the major rule they all use is only the defence can cheat. That is because if the prosecution uses clever tricks they all know you can easily convict many innocent people, but if the defence use them to confuse the jury all that happens is someone goes free who may or may not be guilty, but the crime has been done already so you can't undo it either way.

Science uses equally tough rules normally. Imagine a drug going to the market without full testing. Or stress tests not being carried out on bridges. People will suffer and die from science making assumptions, short cuts and the like commonly used in other less dangerous areas. Normally this is an accepted foundation of all scientific practice, yet in the late 80s, before anything had even happened, some nonentity convinced the US presidential committee of the time because of rising CO2 the earth would warm dangerously in about 2100. Within a few years most governments tried and convicted mankind and we have been punished ever since. Meanwhile as CO2 has risen 50% since 1850 the temperature has risen around 0.8C. The excuse used by the UN and all below them running their rules is the 'precautionary principle'. Insurance companies use this based on actuarial calculations from wonks who have spent seven years in college (and still get it horribly wrong), but those mistakes only lose money, often for themselves. Reducing fossil fuel and every single benefit that arises from it is like reducing oxygen because you believe it warms the planet, and forcing people to breathe less. Heating your home less is exactly the same, death just takes longer.

My point being science does not normally stray from its tight legal type path, as major decisions flow from it and can cause serious consequences if rushed. You would never produce any other findings over a century before the results could even be known, with the caveat it's better to save it possibly happening by a 'remedy' which hurts absolutely everyone, except those investing money in it. They still have to pay more for everything, as fossil fuel propels all the means of transport for their goods and their own holiday flights and petrol. Yes, they get a bundle in the short term, but with inflation racing ahead as a consequence, and cars set to be banned in all European cities maybe they'll want to get somewhere in the future and won't be able to due to their own rules. Not to mention geoengineering, which will dump metal sulphates on their families as well as ours but they still promote.

You would never punish or charge anyone for something with a slim likelihood you could never discover anyway, where the present losses were all known while the benefits never could be, as you can't prove a negative. If it doesn't get warmer in 2100 the policies worked, if it does they need to be doubled to stop it. That's a catch 22 situation and akin to paying the Mafia every month so your business isn't burnt down. A year later they tell you it was so successful they're doubling the premium as they did such a good job.

Don't be run by the Mafia, work it out first.

Friday, 29 November 2013

I can see it coming!

Imagine you are on holiday, the bus picks you up from Eastbourne to go back to your hotel, and all the other passengers are coming back from a stag do and totally pissed, some laughing, some fighting and some sleeping. The driver leaves town and turns off towards the coast road, but on the way to the hotels takes a right and you realise they've gone off the main road and are heading towards Beachy Head, the suicide spot. You shout to the others and they don't know what you're on about and just say things like they love you, or who you looking at etc, so you ask the driver why he's left the road and he says 'Hey man, enjoy the trip', and turns out he's on LSD, as you see Beachy Head getting closer and closer, till the point the driver shouts 'Hey man, I can fly', and off he goes.

Now you would assume had the passengers been sober and the driver not on drugs had anyone taken the wrong turning towards a cliff they would be so pleased to be rescued before the event you may even have earned a medal, but this was a unique situation where anything you could do was impossible to help.

Back to 2006. I used to get a few letters every week offering me credit card, not just the bog standard but also some gold ones, and then more offering me a higher limit than before even though I'd never accepted one or used one before.  It clearly wasn't just me getting all these offers, they had dropped their restrictions and for reasons of their own wanted everyone to get into serious debt regardless of their individual circumstances. And the biggest debt of all, the mortgage, had gone the same way. The old rule of a deposit plus 3X annual income had gone out the window, and people could get over 10 times or simply lie about their earnings in a 'self certification mortgage' (imagine doing that for a job- 'Yes, I passed my medical/architect's/surgeon's exam'), and get whatever they wanted, and forget the deposit, and why not have another 25% on top for home improvements, you can manage it! Banks finished the job by themselves lending not the rule of seven, lending no more than seven times the total they had deposited (I learnt they only lent a seventh of the total in case more people wanted to withdraw money, but that was in the old days), and gone way over 40.

Clearly the hundred years or more the old rules had been in place had been for a very good reason, and those reasons could and would never change as people who borrow money tend to be because they don't have it, especially for non-property loans where they didn't really need it to buy a house but because they wanted something else now rather than save for it. Having deregulated these rules away the governments had (to me at least) opened up the lawless wild west of lending and knowing most people not borrowing for a house do so because they want something they don't really need and can't afford, the risks were obvious. Around that time a stockbroker warned the government of the same thing, apart from the economist Vince Cable, the only known example. He got sacked.

Two years later the debts failed and the entire system almost crashed, but was paid by our tax money which caused a recession which has lasted ever since. It never had to happen, if you broke the rules banking had used since day one because they were clearly required, there would have been no recession, all the banks would still be here, and the economy would be stable. They ignored the obvious risks and suffered the guaranteed consequences.

That is just a big and representative example. The example being (as proved by Gordon Brown, another economist and prime minister of the day, who said he didn't see it coming) the consensus is not always right, and certainly never means the majority know best. I saw the same for global warming well over a decade ago, they ignore the faults in that which are at least as great as the debt crisis, and as it takes a century or so to play out rather than a few years the damage will go on indefinitely, destroying the economy of generations before they finally decide there is no warming 'but it was worth the risk in case there had been', as they cycle harder to keep the lights on as they have no power stations left.

There is a massive lesson in there, one of the greatest you will ever learn. If even one person speaks out and may be ignored, if they are proved to be right at least they have said so and you will remember them. And the consensus (including the experts) were wrong. All of them.

Thursday, 28 November 2013

Facts, opinions, beliefs and choices

I expect this has been done by Greek philosophers onwards, but still each new generation needs it presented anew or they get terribly lost.

Facts do not change whatever you think about them, the only challenge is obtaining enough evidence to determine they are facts. When, like innate intelligence or global warming there simply is not enough evidence to be certain people take what there is and draw their own conclusions from them. These are technically not opinions but beliefs based on an expression of ignorance. The formula here is 'If I knew exactly the information I am referring to, would there be any doubt as to the conclusion?', if not then it's probably best to simply admit you don't know enough and neither does anyone else, and wait till they do. If there is almost enough evidence, whether from direct experience, science or both then you can pretty well be sure what you believe is genuine so only now a tenuous fact.

Opinions and tastes are not based on facts as they are personal. An opinion can be whether you prefer living in the town or country, or with a diverse mixture or just your own type of people. There is no right answer as it is totally based on a preference, and one which can change from time to time over ones life. This means the rabid leftists who attempt to force multiculturalism on everyone in their area as they have chosen it for their own preference (or more accurately what they wish on others as many involved in such plans tend to live in very white wealthy suburbs) and not as they claim because it is the right way to live. Only tyrants do that and we do not want to live in a tyranny unless we develop Stockholm Syndrome (fact). Other opinions include economic socialism or capitalism, where many people benefit and lose from both so not cut and dried, or whether to share more of your earnings with society or keep it for yourself. There is no right answer, which is why each election in a democracy goes with the majority view as neither holds the monopoly on any. The same could go for abortion, the age of consent, the amount of immigration we have, all based on personal opinion as whichever side you support there is an argument against the other. However, if they could find genes for IQ and test the owners of them within five points nearly every time regardless of their social background and upbringing it would remove the intelligence argument from the ignorant realm of opinion, as there definitely is a right answer, into the knowns of certainty and no longer open to question unless they are mentally challenged. The same goes for global warming, had there been a reasonable term to decide for certain we are warming the planet dangerously then we would have a chance to know, but its very nature means that point is set around 2100 so forget it. The next generation will know for sure but unless a reader lives till over 90 then it won't be possible to answer for certain. But know they will, and whichever the outcome our wild speculations today will definitely be seen as ridiculous, fact.

The reason for this, I propose, is the other side of the not-known coin is affirming there is not yet enough evidence to be sure. That would be a fact for the present as it is always up to a scientist to overcome the null hypothesis, in that there must be a genuine case before you can act on it. I say there isn't, and it's my view based not on the amount of evidence for it, but the lack of evidence for it. This means because firstly the argument itself is not anywhere near cohesive enough and is many decades from witnessing, plus the vast number of scientists who disagree I just listed elsewhere, it is not nearly sufficient evidence to act on, identical to a not guilty verdict in a trial, which is the closest thing a criminal case has without a guilty plea. Luckily science does not have criminals who hide their evidence, as the earth creates its own and although many try very hard to twist it will always prevail in the end.

Taste is a version of opinion. Our food tastes are innate, we either like something or not, which also changes over time. We don't and can't think about it to change. Decoration is similar, but much wider, we may love or hate certain styles, but accept most in between. Music, art, everything like it, is a matter of personal taste, you can usually assess quality (music can be mathematically regular while art can be representative technically at least), but not what you'd want in your house compared to another. You can therefore say a book or TV programme etc was crap, but would need a hundred people or more agreeing as a great majority before they stopped making the series. But even then the quality of an abstract painting or sculpture, or dire TV comedy can never be totally pinned down as a few people will always think they are marvellous, and as each opinion of taste is equally valid then you can't shift them to a factual basis unless every single person agreed, and even then it would never be permanent for future opinions.

The reason I am writing this is so many people confuse facts for opinions and vice versa. I suspect the major field this happens in is the not knowns, so because there is some smoke but no fire, it is very easy to have an 'opinion' each way, so it is really a belief, like that in God, which is only until and unless we ever actually know, just as we can only really know what happens after death when it happens and not waste time speculating beforehand as we are physically prevented from having enough evidence. This is because a genuine opinion, as in Labour or Conservative, pro-life or pro-choice etc can never have a right answer however much you learn about it, as there are winners and losers on both choices, for intelligence and global warming if they could talk they would tell us now, but while we don't know, any more than we do about life after death or aliens visiting earth, all we have is an amount of evidence. As the amount grows the likely answer becomes closer, and there is always a point before the conclusion you can see it coming so pretty easy to work out. But till then people take the small or medium amount of evidence there is, draw their conclusions, and rip the shit out of each other as it's currently impossible to know for sure either way so why the hell bother arguing until we do?

So, we have facts, opinions, tastes, and beliefs. They may look similar without your glasses from a distance, and may have a few areas where they almost overlap, but each is a separate being which cannot be made to be confused with the others, as this only leads to both total confusion, argument, disorder and ultimate chaos, while destroying the basis for knowledge in petty squabbles based on sheer lack of knowledge.

Climate consensus list

As the crooks claim there is a 97% consensus among scientists man is causing global warming, there must be an awful lot qualified to judge as over the years I've come across at least a hundred at the highest levels, equal to all the others you hear regularly in the media, who disagree. If they represent 3% then there must be tens of thousands who agree. But technically if a theory not yet demonstrated (the 2C rise is not officially expected till around 2100 when none of us will be here to know either way) has even a few peers who disagree there is too much doubt to act on it (which most of the developed world had been doing for decades already). But this is more than a few. And how can you be trying to destroy the science when their own peers listed below disagree with them as actual scientists? If there is that much disagreement how on earth can they or anyone be so sure they are already right despite absolutely no amplification of the bare minimum temperature rise from added CO2 so far?

This is not written for any technical knowledge, just a handy reference list of known dissenters, all qualified to do so, most with PhDs. Just search any of the names and see their work directly.

Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Jr and Snr, Ferenc Miskolczi, Richard Lindzen, Stanton Friedman, Philip Stott, Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, Lucka Kajfesz-Bogotaj, Michael Beenstock, Piers Corbyn, Nils-Axel Morner, Vincent Gray, Hal Lewis, John Christy, Tim Ball, Richard Courtney,  Willem de Lange, Chris de Freitas,  Lee Gerhard, Kenneth Green, Yuri Izrael, Steven Japar, Madhav Khandekar, Chris Landsea, Harry Lins, Patrick Michaels, Murray Salby, Jan Pretel, Paul Reiter, Tom Segalstad, Fred Singer, Hajo Smit, Tom Tripp, David Wojick, Miklos Zagoni, Eduardo Zorita, William Gray, David Bellamy, Johnny Ball, Leonard Weinstein, Robert B Laughlin, Christopher J Kobus, Anatoly Levitin, Geraldo Luís Lino,  Mary Mumper, William C. Gilbert,  Hans Jelbring, Burt Rutan, Patrick Moore (ex-Greenpeace), John Reid, Antonis Christofides, Nikos Mamassis, Pavel Makarevich, Hilton Ratcliffe, James Lovelock (Gaia theory, recanted), Peter Taylor, Denis Rancourt, Don Easterbrook, Robert Austin, Freeman Dyson, Garth Paltridge, Hendrik Tennekes, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Khabibullo Abdusamatov,  David Douglass, Ian Clark, William Kininmonth, William Happer, David Legates, Tad Murty, Tim Patterson, Ian Plimer, Henrik Svensmark, Jan Veizer, Claude Allegre, Robert C Balling, Petr Chylek, David Deming, Ivar Giaever, Antonio Zichichi, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Indur Goklany, Tom Nelson, Steven Goddard, Lubos Motl, Bob Carter, Sherwood Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Hugh Ellsaesser, David Deming, Richard Tol,Joe D'Aleo, Joe Bastardi, Joseph Postma, Noor van Andel.

That amounts to about a hundred, if that's 3% then there must be at least three thousand peers who disagree with them. Are there that many in the world?

I will add some more when I get the chance.

If I'd believed in global warming, just as I did in the 90s before the political fallout, and had read the quotes attached to these names I just have for the second time or more, I'd have given up there and then. Each one time after time, repeats they know it is absolute nonsense as it goes against every scientific principle they were taught and they want nothing to do with it. As the entire foundation of global warming is still set in a distant future of decades to a century or more it is nothing more than a supposition, contradicted by the known present facts the temperature is rising nowhere near fast enough to complete the potential claimed result, in fact nowhere near it. Put those two elements together and my own conclusion is were if the media gave equal publicity to the quotes and studies I have just looked through as the usual suspects we only hear over and over again (far fewer than named above) most people would have the same 'You've been had' moment as I did some years after the story first surfaced when nothing they said would happen did have, so I decided to do my own research.

All those names mean either one or the other side is wrong, or if not neither knows enough to be certain, meaning by not beating the null hypothesis of presenting a new theory with sufficient evidence, the theory is not yet ready, or technically, void. There is no other logical or scientific conclusion possible.

One of the emperors of warning himself, Mike Hulme, admitted this himself in June 2010 about the alleged consensus: “That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.”

That is direct from the horse's mouth, why listen to John Cook on Skeptical Science who is paid to spread manure and barely qualified?

For more details and quotes start here.
And continue here.

Beating the cheats: Greenpeace

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

Not another destruction of Greenpeace, but an example from them of how this principle operates, and how you can stop it working for you:

"What's more, there is growing evidence that melting in Greenland and the Arctic is accelerating. With current warming, it is highly likely that Greenland may melt irreversibly – contributing 7 meters to sea level rise."

Greenpeace website

Ice caps have a very specific amount of ice in them, the Antarctic cannot melt as it is around -37C on average, and we can't undo that much. Greenland, however, is the only other substantial land ice mass, and that contains 7 metres of sea level rise should it melt. Putting their claim into context, the sea rose 7 inches in the 20th century (consequences known, negligible), and is currently rising at the same rate, as Greenpeace note: "...but in the next hundred years the rate of sea level rise could increase dramatically."

Even they couldn't claim more than 'could increase' as despite their previous sentence "Over the last hundred years, sea levels rose ten times faster than their 2000-year average, " they are saying the sea usually rises around half an inch a century. Even if that was true (it isn't), it still can't change a 7 inch rise to a 7 metre rise unless our temperature rises ten times or so. I'm not going to do all the equations of how much it needs to rise to do so or I'd be here all week, but can extrapolate yourselves from the smaller figures everyone appears to agree with, including Greenpeace: "The IPCC puts predictions of 21st century sea level rise at 9 to 88 cm (3.5-34.6 inches)."

This corresponds to a temperature rise of 1-6C, so a quick calculation tells us Greenland would indeed need maybe two to three times more than the maximum amount of rise even the UN's highest estimate presents. Of course, then they back pedal by saying it could take centuries, but people have already been taken in by then, and compress the time in their minds as if 700 or more years can be real to them as 7 years. Their minds are already lost to reality. But the genuine dishonesty is the 7 metre figure in centuries is based on the very highest 6C rise, which would then have to continue consistently for centuries before it finally happened. How exactly could this happen?

The figures: The current temperature rise is around 0.05C a decade since 1850 while 0.1C since 1970. However looking within the second figure that was between 1970 and 2000, while it has virtually stopped in the decade since. The 30 year cycles are the key in climate, and the simplest ones to observe. The major decadal oscillations are a 30 year sine wave as are the main solar cycles. Put them together and they fit the last 150 years pretty well compared to the CO2 which is linear, while the temperatures rise and fall as they always have.

If you stick with the highest recorded decadal rise and continue then by 2100 (we'll all be dead, but it is only a thought experiment) the temperature will have risen by 1.6C, well below the crucial 2C where the climate is expected to be overall worse than before that point. Using past and current sea level rises the projected rise would be another 7 inches, as last century. Unlike the temperature sea levels are far more stable, so despite fluctuations in temperature the sea level evens them out, and takes much longer to react to only long term variations. Therefore despite it being impossible to predict temperatures a decade or a century ahead (a 4 degree error margin used by the UN proves this as it is many times larger than the possible results, so void), if you smooth the temperatures for a decade or a century, you can physically work out the sea level rise per degree or less simply as you know exactly the amount of ice which melts in response. Therefore a 7 inch rise on 1.6C, using recent historic records to project as CO2 is currently linear in rise, and reduces its power on doubling. Therefore if it reaches 520ppm it would then need to rise to 1040ppm to do the same as it did between 260-520 etc.

Greenpeace skate over that one. There is no other mechanism possible to cause a rise beyond the 1.6C we are currently heading for, CO2 has risen 50% since 1850, temperature has risen 0.7C, while around 0.3 has been natural. Without amplification from positive feedback, ie evaporating oceans causing more water vapour where it counts in the atmosphere then CO2 alone can do little more than 1.5C over a massive increase, which is barely enough over the few centuries it could take to cause a single problem, using UN criteria. The experiment has been run, CO2 has risen 50% and there is no increased rise beyond its own fraction of 1C for doubling, in fact slightly less. The other reason this may be happening is because oceanic evaporation is water. No, bear with me. For reasons I did not do at school, evaporating water can either cause vapour or droplets. I don't know how or why as under 100C it should all be liquid, but those are the rules. Liquid water droplets form clouds, which block sunlight from hitting the ground (shade) so are clearly a cooling factor. Therefore the evaporating oceans have an equal chance of becoming clouds (cooling, a balancing factor) or water vapour (warming, positive feedback). The killer here is it is not possible to model cloud changes. All the UN models fail to include cloud cover, not because they're deliberately trying to fool us, but because they simply can't do it. Thinking about it, modelling the entire climate minus the clouds is comparable to modelling the human mind, so the fact it has very sharp limits should come as no surprise. We can only do things the old way here, by observing the past and present. And by doing so, we see there is no positive feedback. There is no reference to delays, the feedback was expected and it has not arrived.

Back to Greenpeace, unlike me, they have access to everything. They know more about the climate than everyone besides the universities and UN themselves, as they have the resources and contacts to do so. That means they know everything I have said here and much more, yet their written material ignores every single element, and creates a scenario most people (I know as they all vote for governments who believe in man made warming) unlike scientists do agree on. The consensus among scientists is far lower (52% in the latest survey of American meteorologists) but they simply don't air it in public as besides the minority they don't work for themselves so need to keep their jobs, unlike Ferenc Miskolczi who was sacked from NASA and had his work wiped from their records as it found faults in their material. That is what happens when employees question their lords and masters. By clearly setting the rises of temperature and sea level at the highest and least likely UN level for 2100, against the evidence since it was written in the 1990s, Greenpeace have openly and directly stretched the truth as far as it possibly can be without actually splitting, simply because their sole defence is they are only using supposition, which we can never prove either way as they're too far ahead to ever know.

That should remove any actual confidence you should have in their predictions alone, and for Greenpeace itself for using such clearly misleading methods.

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

Property is theft

I have heard this argument all my life, why should family or friends benefit from the hard work of others simply through inheritance? They did nothing to earn it, so why should they be any more entitled to it than others (ie the state, which is the only alternative if wills are not permitted).

This is an official policy of some on the left of Labour, no need to go any further to the fringes, so needs a serious analysis in case for any reason it ever becomes part of their manifesto in any form.

Looking at a family, until the children are old enough to work it is fully accepted the parents support them through their earnings, but under the far left equality is most important so requires vast levels of taxation, so even though some parents earn far more than others, as each person, and especially the children are equal the end result must be equalised as far as possible, so the successful share with everyone regardless of their abilities.

This is interesting in itself, as high taxation of the top levels of society is very similar to children of working age being given money by their successful parents, only in a long way round. The only difference is the children here are strangers, whose parents happen to earn less than average so must be brought up to the mean for equality.

That aside, what actually happens with the wealth of the parents after the children reach working age? Under socialism, the far end, whatever amount the parents add to the system most is removed and put back into it, not directly (there are no examples of negative taxation in any manifestos, ie returning money back not just to non-working people, but everyone who has less directly, beyond the margins of the lowest earners). Instead those taxes go to the state who spends it as they wish, as they have the role of protecting society whatever their specific aims and ideals.

Therefore the wealth of the parents left behind after taxation may actually not be sufficient to spend on children of working age, but when there is then although it's not legally binding to do so, most parents do keep spending money on their children because they still have more and may reach a point where their mortgage is paid off they need less so are more able to do so.

Therefore all they have to do where inheritance is banned is to share their spare money while they are alive. Assuming they are allowed to have any of course. And what about charitable donations, to strangers or non-related friends? What if someone chose to hand over their spare money to people in need of it because they wanted to? Or even put their property in trust so a charity could get rent or other benefits? Would the government see that as a good thing?

Making laws is a thoroughly Byzantine task, as every possible result must be considered in advance, otherwise any loopholes or injustices will be translated to reality and the damage will be done.

Therefore, if you ban inheritance, you must regulate living gifts. If someone can't hand over their property on death but reverts to the state, is it OK to give your money to charity, friends, or family before you die? Once you decide that then technically you must have the same rule for wills, as what's the sense in being allowed to give to charities while alive and not after death? If you donate £50,000 to the RSPCA and die the next day it would be OK, but if you left them the same in your will it would be void as all property went back to the state, so then you would need exceptions. Any property could go to charities but nothing else. Then wills must return, and the likelihood would be the state loses out altogether as nearly everyone would prefer to decide who got their property than the state, and the state would lose a massive amount of income (although it all went to good causes beyond their control). They would then need to raise taxes even higher to fill that gap.

They would, of course, also have to restrict gifts within life to stop people simply sharing what they have before they die (although that is exactly what the state are doing by compulsory means under socialism). So children may be banned from receiving money at 18 from their parents (try enforcing that mind you) otherwise all that would happen is besides their capital (which can be transferred, but requires far more complexity) all they'd do is work out how much they can afford to give their children while they live, and then make sure they get as much as possible that way. But what about other relations or friends? People don't just leave money to their children, often not at all through personal disputes. So really you won't be allowed to hand over any gifts or be accused of evading inheritance taxes. Except charity I suppose.

Basically a simple view can be seen to operate in practice, although this is a conventional opinion and policy of the far left, and secondly the very fact they clearly have not run this very simple experiment of the consequences demonstrates their hearts rule over their heads, and there is very little going on in their heads or they could not allow that to happen.

Sunday, 24 November 2013

Setting precedents. If it's happened before it's possible.

After the war and the liberation of the concentration camps it became known eventually Churchill and many other leaders were well aware of their existence, but had they done anything about it believed they may have allowed Hitler to know they'd intercepted their intelligence and hurt the war effort. Forget the millions of innocent people they could have saved, they believed overall victory, keeping their countries free from invasion, was far more important than any deaths in the short term. This was a passive acceptance of genocide, a collusion at the highest levels, allowed 'because it prevented something even worse'.

Before the war ended the German people unanimously elected the National Socialist Party, whose major policy was to rid Germany of the alleged cause of its hyperinflation and huge economic problems, the Jews and undesirables. The great majority of voters, the consensus, was the Jews were so dangerous to the national economy, and not part of the master race, they could never succeed as long as they were in the country. Up till there nothing was new, the Jews and others have been expelled from other countries from the beginning of the bible, but unlike the previous examples the Nazis didn't even consider simply kicking them out, as the English and Spanish had done, but wanted to wipe them out altogether, as they weren't just bad for Germany, but the world itself.

The governments knew, the German people believed it and chose for it to be carried out, and many millions of people are now gone as a result.

This set a new precedent, in that it can be possible to convince an entire nation to not just remove any unwelcome race, but eliminate them entirely. And then once the governments discovered this was happening, nothing was ever done before the war ended as it was not seen as important. The people who collude with your enemy are surely also your enemy, and proved secondly it is capable to happen. The last war is not unique, just extreme, and since then tribes and Christians have been slaughtered in Africa, nothing was done to stop it by our governments, while in Iraq it was only after Saddam Hussein killed the Kurds in his own country in very similar ways as Hitler using poison gas, they finally invaded when the damage had already been done, for reasons we still don't know.

So we now know:

a) The people of a 'civilised' modern country can be convinced to wipe out any group the government want rid of.

b) Your own government is capable of allowing them to do it.

Besides proving the government are not your friends, and people can be convinced of anything by them as they know how to do it, it proved something far worse which is happening right now, it can happen again.

Having quoted the original founders of the Green movement from the 70s onwards who believed man was a cancer on the planet, many such as the late Stephen Schneider and David Suzuki then reached positions of power within the UN and its agencies, as well as the Bilderberg Group, Club of Rome and all the other Rockefeller related cabals, giving them the power to carry out these policies. Taking direct confessions quoted previously, 'The threat of global warming will be the motivation for the new world order', repeated in many variations leaving absolutely no doubt this was their plan, and as demonstrated above, is quite possible to repeat, this time not just the Jews and undesirables, but the 'Useless eaters', as they call us, getting in the way of their enjoyment of the planet. And what do you do to fix the problem? An 80% reduction in population. Not enough Jews then, sorry, unlike the last time they mean you as well.

Do you want them to continue? If you are reading this, probably not, as I tend to preach only to the converted who read my material. But we have a world consensus, not necessarily among the scientists or the governments, not in private anyway, as they have the genuine figures about the climate, but the voters themselves who vote for climate measures which, like the concetration camps, kill people today to save people tomorrow. Yes, it happened before, don't let it happen again now you know it is.