Thursday, 27 February 2014

Agenda 21- a background and history

The true nature of UN Agenda 21 is described in full details and summaries all over the internet, but here is a nutshell view of the history, supporters and creators behind the current regulations, so not summarising Agenda 21 directly, but the full context and background required to understand it and its true motives.

The Green Movement were the original creators of Agenda 21 as it is today, based on the nebulous (and hollow) concept of "sustainability", a standard and typical neologism, or bastardisation of an existing specific and obscure word borrowed from a dusty dictionary to be revived with its new meaning. David Suzuki has some nice video lectures from as far back as the 70s, where he described mankind like 'maggots on the planet', and as one of the main drivers behind Agenda 21 and one of its most active promoters today, can represent a good deal of the true motives and power behind the ostensibly innocent movement set up telling you and me it's protecting the planet.

The wonderful thing is these individuals have spelt out their motives clearly, leaving no doubt as to their beliefs and intentions, and have more than enough power to carry them out. George Soros, the billionaire behind the environmental propaganda movement, including the PR companies and Environmental Media Services, designed to brainwash the masses into following the green movement, is not interested in it whatsoever, but like the similar Al Gore is interested in the massive investment potential from carbon credits, oil restrictions and anything which can manipulate the energy and related markets to guarantee many figure profits. Al Gore borrowed the idea of carbon credits from Enron, which got them all put away for fraud but it's OK if it's saving the planet, created a company, paid his credits to it along with everyone else, and became a billionaire from producing absolutely nothing. That is the funding behind the movement, the multi millionaires who want even more, who work with the activists to provide the combination of power broking and the investment to make huge profits out of exercising that power.

But behind it all is David Suzuki's philosophy, shared by his movement including Greenpeace, whose current officers believe in various versions mankind is a cancer on the planet, and the only solution is a drastic reduction in the population and activities of it. Hence Agenda 21, the international law designed to do exactly that in nearly every one of the world's countries who all signed up to it. Over 200. Their policies, nothing to do with climate or global warming, are all about in their eyes undoing the damage mankind has done to the environment through industrialisation, and their solution, de-development, attempts to dismantle as much as possible of what has been created since the industrial revolution to bring about this aim. Of course the majority of their followers have little or no idea of these true aims (despite them all being openly documented) and really still believe it's all about saving the pandas, polar bears and preventing global warming. In fact it's about a massive and fast as possible population reduction, reduction in world industry and redistribution of wealth to the third world.  Back to David Suzuki. Here is his 1971 quote on maggots directly We are only maggots

This looks and sounds like the plot of the worst B movie ever, but here is more than enough evidence it is all exactly as I described and probably a lot worse.

The most valuable material, besides the acts themselves, are the confessions of those who carried out or put these acts in motion. Once David Suzuki describes his view mankind are like maggots, and others that mankind is a cancer on the planet, we have the loony stamp. Unless they repent their views, they remain loonies and till the late 20th century such people were considered an unfortunate paranoid remnant of humanity destined to live and operate on society's most distant fringes, often within institutions. But David Suzuki, Margaret Mead, David Rockefeller, Stephen Schneider, and all the lesser known but equally important names they worked with back in the 70s, notably before global warming existed as a mass movement and belief, had the power of professors and the ear of politicians who take academics and qualified activists extremely seriously. So these are not the lunatic fringe merchants spouting utter bollocks, but powerful academics working with both politicians like Al Gore and businessmen like David Rockefeller, with the ability to get their policies adopted by offering massive business opportunities through carbon trading, renewable subsidies and the like, and in return for vast profits the businessmen pour in as much in investment to promote these policies which are like casting their bread to the water and returning it in far greater numbers.

I will begin with the 1975"The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering," conference, the root of the current movement and Agenda 21, which set out the foundations for the future policies, which sad to say are only in their earliest stages, with plenty more ahead all documented and slowly being rolled out at a pace too slow for nearly anyone to notice, the same policy used by the Common Market in its slow but inevitable shift into the EU. Had you said at the time, as I did, this would happen, you would have been (and I was) called a swivel eyed loony and xenophobe, but every single thing I said in 1975 was correct by 2012. So there is a track record here, and that was long before the internet and only the most basic political threads to follow. These foundations, remember from extremely powerful individuals with the ears of governments worldwide and taught in degree courses, include quotes such as

At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socioeconomic gains and fatally imperil the environment.... The earlier extreme views that social and economic justice alone can somehow offset population increase and that the mere provision of contraception can sufficiently reduce population—were defeated

Here is the first clue. I personally agree we are overpopulated, but only education and contraception can be the long term solution which will take generations to implement. But not for them, they openly state that is not enough, so managed depopulation must be carried out. Using the Agenda 21 glossary, required for all reading it to translate the empty meaningless words it uses, this means 'genocide'. Margaret Mead promoted genocide.

In fact she was only reiterating a view by the winning side, that after the war eugenics was still the only way to deal with the growing problem, ie the problem was present on both sides whichever one actually won. The only difference being the openness of the Axis powers opposed to the subtle and almost invisible wishes of those within the allies who wished to hijack it for their own means. Of course they only represented a handful at the time, but you only need a handful of HIV in your body to eventually go down with AIDS.

" As Julian Huxley, the vice president of Britain's Eugenics Society (1937-44), had announced in 1946, "even though it is quite true that radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable." Huxley was then director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)."
Stage one

Clearly there was no idea about global warming in 1946, let alone the early 70s when they thought there would be an ice age, but an ice age will not allow anyone to suggest dismantling world industry will prevent it, while warming was the perfect vehicle.

 Running ahead a few years, we then have 'Post-Normal Science', created by Funtowicz and Ravetz, and explained by Mike Hulme, one of the highest UN climatologists. This basically states you are allowed to lie to promote an important cause as it's the only way people will listen. Here's how he described it in an interview with The Guardian: "Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence." Followed by the Guardian journalist who added "In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage."

So they admit they fiddle the figures and exaggerate the threats, why? To influence political policy. Yes, it is a political movement, using the scientists as useful co-conspirators to raise them to the status of powerful policy makers getting billions in funding in the US alone from taxes, where before they had been an obscure backroom theoretical collection of boffins and anoraks who no one really cared about. They had everything to gain and only their integrity to lose, which to all but a few percent (according to them, not me) of them was well worth the trade. And now to the punchline, the true meanings of Agenda 21 and sustainability, from those who make them.

Global warming is the vehicle currently used to make such dreams into reality. Make the people believe they have made the world warm dangerously through burning fossil fuels, and the fossil fuels become the enemy while the people become the perpetrators for using them. And what do you normally do with enemy perpetrators? Is it becoming clearer now? The first thing they actually did was tax them. Not the industries of course, they were too important to upset, so they gave them their carbon permits free which they then sold on using the markets created for the purpose to make billions from our tax money. It was the ordinary people who paid, through energy bill and petrol levies, which affect the poor the most, as they have to use the same amount of heat and petrol (even if using public transport) as everyone else, but have less overall to keep the remainder. So they all pay a higher proportion of their income in tax and less on luxuries. But of course if some countries have taxes and others don't then half the world will still emit CO2 and the 'problem' can't properly be controlled. The only solution is a world carbon tax, legally requiring both a new international tier of government and ideally an entirely world currency. Which is the next step in the UN plan to implement a single government and tax, solely on the basis that without it they could never effectively deal with global warming. They had to have the global warming before they could implement the tax, which was what they actually wanted first, otherwise how could they justify it?

Clues and leaks must always creep out when you're storing dead bodies and sewage. You can't cut up corpses and hide them in the roof like Dennis Nilsen without people noticing the odd smell or random loose finger. And as the UN want this to become reality they can hardly keep it quiet forever, but just occasionally allow more apparently innocent stories to come out, only to be followed by more with the truth. Here the Daily Telegraph report plans for a world currency World Currency proposal as an innocent restructuring exercise by the UN to organise the world's economy better. As the bible says, Satan cannot openly announce his intentions, so must appear to be helping and looking after you, gain your trust and then stab you in the back or poison your food. People won't accept governments who come straight out with plans to remove their wealth, so they have to make complex formulas telling the people there is a serious problem (in this case global warming), it is, sadly, their fault for wanting to improve their standard of living over pre-industrial society, and they will have to do something to reduce the damage. Including a world currency which in fact is like shop vouchers, they only last a year, and any left at the end simply expire, so no collection of wealth is possible any longer.

So, from a simple and innocent suggestion to equalise imbalances between countries, soon after it was reported the currency would not be a coordination of interest rates and markets, but based on energy credits (ie Enron again) replacing your money, and only lasting a year before they ran out. That meant any credits were wiped out, and if god forbid they ran out before the end of the year you would simply have nothing. If not then you would be burning more than your quota and adding to the overall emissions, which would endanger the planet. The true plans

“Although donors must meet their commitments, it is time to look for other ways to find resources to finance development needs and address growing global challenges, such as combating climate change…
“We are suggesting various ways to tap resources through international mechanisms, such as coordinated taxes on carbon emissions, air traffic, and financial and currency transactions.” 

We have now come the full circle, from suggestions post-war onwards, to solid and physical means and suggested following mechanisms to enlarge the power and scope, which if you look carefully are happening somewhere all the time. I will end with a few open confessions which save me the entire trouble of writing everything above as these powerful politicians, academics and businessmen have simply told you directly.

Since I wrote this there is now an official peer reviewed paper which explains how it is essential to lie about the climate to create international agreements. They've gone way, way, beyond trying to cover it up now, and is now totally in the open. All we need is the press to share it and the whole thing will go away overnight
We must lie about the climate

Here is the summary from Cfact's President David Rothbard: 

'Global warming skeptics have long charged that alarmists are over-hyping the dangers of climate change. Now comes a new paper from two economists in Singapore and Hong Kong that actually advocates exaggerating global warming fears to get countries on board international environmental agreements. 

According to Kevin Glass of, the paper claims that the urgency of climate change makes it OK to deceive the public about the projected consequences of global warming. They don’t actually use the word “lying,” but by calling for “informational manipulation and exaggeration,” they certainly think the ends justify these very questionable and over-heated means.'----------------------------------------------------------

Ottmar Edenhoffer, a UN economic officer, said in a 2010 interview with NZZ online in Germany:
" must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

Margaret Mead in 1974:
"What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"

The Club of Rome's 1991 publicly available report 'The First Global Revolution'
The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself." 

The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."

Summary of the true agenda

Henry Kissinger, in address to the Bilderberg Group at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 (Page 83-84 The Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin)

"Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troups entered Los angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is expecially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existance. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing everyman fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government,"


Why not try and interpret these statements (and many more like it) in a different way.

Thursday, 20 February 2014

Lifting the mist

Behind all the issues I've been looking into, the bottom line, the single determining factor in creating illusions with which to lead the people into penury, is the mist of illusion. It became clearest when debating hundreds and hundreds of qualified and unqualified ardent believers in global warming, who, regardless of their levels of education, all acted as young immature children, rejecting all data and logic, attacking the messengers, and only listening to the tiny fraction of people they consider qualified to inform them, despite the data having been made public for all to scrutinise. So if a line isn't going up, is going up too slowly, or had to be forced to go up from not going up, everyone can see it equally. But when those who made those slopes justify how they changed from either not existing or simply dismiss the length of how long they haven't sloped, and offer random reasons more familiar with an absence of homework, the believers continue believing.

In common, with narrowing circles of Venn diagrams, most appear to share similar political values, something previously unheard of in science, and only overlapping with unrelated issues from religion, where each time science contradicted long held religious beliefs, the proponents would be threatened or killed, till in the end the proof became too strong and the religions had to cave in each time. But when it's a simple matter of travelling east and returning west to prove the earth is round, or sending up satellites to prove the earth goes round the sun, you can't simply do the same with complex theories like global warming, especially as the great majority is set in the far future we'll never live to see.

But once you start mixing with these characters you find more. Most, the great majority, fall on the political left, and by what can be no coincidence, the policies devised to 'tackle' or 'mitigate' global warming nearly all involve a reverse of industrialisation and huge taxes on business and people alike. Plus a redistribution from the wealthy west to the third world, in what some call 'climate compensation'. Now whether you can buy good climate, like you could create a good harvest by sacrificing a virgin, remains a moot point, shunned by anyone using direct evidence and logic over sentiment and faith. The fact the demon CO2 has risen unabated in the couple of decades since the taxes have risen and fossil fuel been restricted more and more supports this view, that you cannot pay for change, but only redistribute money from the people to others. So the measures created to deal with warming, which in turn blames the entire collection of mankind, most of all the developed west, are the exact ones previously promoted and failed by the extremes from Stalin onwards, with each failing till all who were left were Cuba and North Korea of any note, both of which represent some of the most primitive and restrictive societies on the planet. The general view that there is a limit on personal wealth above which it becomes both immoral, and takes money from others, is another illusion so widespread it currently dictates around 50% of democratic politics. No country I know of with different parties does not have a mainstream socialist one, whose main weapon is limiting the amount of wealth anyone is able to amass before they have to return most of it to the state.

Then you have the deadly political meme of the late 20th century onwards of political correctness, spawned by the twin demons of diversity and multiculturality. Developing such wonderful results, based on the premise they are not opinions but the only ways to live, as mass uncontrolled immigration and claiming marriage is no different between two people of the same sex as different. It isn't even important if I agree or not, they say there is no question, it is right and if you question it you are a bigot. No, marriage is a fixed formula which like any other has little area to change, and if suggested to do so would normally challenge it with the greatest opposition from the established view, which for reasons beyond my reckoning never existed. But the idea it is the only way to be, after thousands of years of not being, represents very well the mindset of what I could call the enchanted, those under a spell of the ruling elite such as Peter Mandelson, who created many of these ideas and set them into society when part of the ruling Labour Party. This is my bottom line, the enchantment which allows those affected to believe any or all of a collection of beliefs which are not only what I personally see as on the extreme end of opinions, but present them all as not only facts, but such essentials to society anyone who questions them is the enemy, and must be silenced, the only question being what lengths are reasonable to do so.

So that is my picture. There is a form of mist, a mental enchantment of hypnosis, exploited by a small elite of powerful people, many under David Rockefeller, as listed in Bilderberg, Club of Rome and Globe International meetings among various similar others, with heavyweights such as George Soros and Henry Kissinger making policy and giving interviews often explaining exactly what they are doing with no questions being offered in return and very little reporting when documented. Demonising anyone who doesn't want mass or more immigration (apparently including many thousands of existing immigrants as they don't want a more crowded country any more than anyone else) or thinks gay marriage is real is the method they use, and call people who question global warming things like baby killers. Besides playing far more dirty than even Satan had in the bible, these are the acts of scoundrels, totalitarians, and only previously such present day rulers as Mugabe and the wonderful clan of Kims in North Korea. Now if the leaders here act like the leaders there, then clearly that is their nature wherever they are. But the followers have not necessarily started off that way, but have been infected by the virus of misinformation delivered through political and social high authority, and only now capable of being communicated to through these channels, demonising any attempts from the minority (like the minority with higher IQs) to correct their twisted minds.

In third world countries (and now Ukraine), instead of simply occupying parts of city centres and defecating on national monuments, they riot, loot and murder when challenged by anyone to bring in policies against their perceived utopian systems, from Sunnis v Shias, to east v west wars today in Ukraine, and our Mafia v your Mafia in places like Syria and Egypt, where it's basically a matter of which family or clan wants to take the most in drug money and arms profits. Take the IRA, who were basically a Catholic group who hid behind religious divisions and the fact the Protestant majority in the north of Ireland held on to British rule when the rest was allowed independence, to run a local Mafia for decades, doing the usual drug and arms trades and executing their enemies openly while keeping silence from everyone local who knew every name and act committed. Run this forward to today and we have protection rackets, graft and threats against family members, not by the Mafia directly but the UN, planning world carbon taxes and currencies, and taking huge amounts from the west and giving it to energy companies in 'renewable subsidies', and third world militias in the guise of climate aid, but most ends up in arms and drugs as always.

They are the source of the problem, causing the hypnotised masses to believe enough of what they tell them, to demonstrate in the streets for the 99%, gay marriage, free Palestine, and whichever other divisive campaign to either put citizen against citizen locally, or drag up some distant conflict the 99% know barely anything about but are motivated normally to take the side against the good guys. So the Syrian rebels, doing pretty much what happened in Iran when the totalitarian government was taken over by a religious totalitarian government, which was even worse as it imposed extreme religion on everyone regardless, and made women into little more than slaves, yet the UN and most governments (read 'Obama') back the rebels in Syria despite the Syrian academics in the west telling us they are now sponsoring the same religious terrorists who took over Iran and basically run most of Pakistan above the official government.


This is the cause and the background, but the symptoms are very clear and simple. Ordinary people are indoctrinated, as they are in communist countries more openly, and religious rules, and once infected by the mist in front of their eyes blindly, on the least available evidence, totally accept any view forced upon them by hypnosis and unable to be awoken by those stronger minds not able to be converted, at least not for long enough for it to stick, as many have believed such things either as children or when global warming was first raised, but soon realised on their own it couldn't be genuine and let it drop. But the majority (as the masses must be) are lost, and simply knowing, from the unavoidable signs, a person is gone, is the least we can be aware of, and whether there is a cure is really another stage beyond anything I am currently able to put into operation. But if anyone says anything like:

Burning fossil fuel will cause dangerous global warming.
We must redistribute wealth.
Gay marriage is equal marriage.
Opposing immigration is racist.
All cultures are equal.
Society must represent all types at all levels, and use positive discrimination to make sure of it
Newcastle is hideously white.
We must make society into a mixture of all cultures
Women and ethnic minorities fail to succeed equally as they are discriminated against.
It is wrong to reveal or consider the ethnic origins of criminals even if nearly all of certain crimes are committed by them, or nearly all certain groups such as Roma gypsies make their livings primarily through crime.
It is wrong there are such differences in wealth in our country.
What other religions do is their business and we must not get involved with it however unpleasant it may be to us it is their culture to do so.
Society should tax the richest as much as possible, even if it does not collect more revenue, as it is immoral to own too much.
Families should not be allowed to leave their property to others after they die.
Selective education is elitist.

There are plenty more I'll add when they come to me, but I'm sure you get the idea. Childish, emotional, misleading and totally illusory memes which wouldn't play out once put into practice, as seen by the devastation caused by carbon taxes and shutting down power stations. These are all based on exaggerated or non-existent ideas, something I could prove to a point but blindingly obvious to those not touched by the brush of illusion, and impossible to convey to them using evidence or any form of communication, as they only hear those who converted them in the first place. They were often the 'joiners', beginning as children of activist parents being dragged to demonstrations holding placards for things they did not and could not understand, combining the social excitement with the authority of their parents who most young children trust totally, to grow up and not grow out of following any other cause their leaders encourage them to, often with little or no understanding or evidence to do so but simply going along with their crowd. By then they become habitual joiners, signing anything Greenpeace or Oxfam shove in their hands, and defending it from all corners despite probably knowing little or nothing about Israeli history or world sea levels.

We are being run by an army of the ignorant from a small cabal of the informed, and simply recognising who is lost to us is at least a start in understanding how presently society is being run by exploiting these less strong minded and mature people while those of us able not to be affected by such childish and simplistic nonsense are being demonised, and in some cases persecuted for questioning and challenging them. And sadly, most who have a couple of those views revealed share most or all of them. Maybe it is a cycle and it will run its course, but we can never be complacent and assume most infections will blow themselves out naturally, especially when they are hurting so many innocent people with carbon taxes, land grabs to grow biofuel, burning corn for fuel and causing third world starvation, and even something as apparently trivial as France's new top 75% tax rate. It may only apply to a few hundred millionaires but it's a throwback to an earlier discredited philosophy being revived again by the ugliest government in Europe. All are examples of the same attitude which dilutes and divides societies worldwide, causing poverty and conflict, and if knowledge is power, then knowing the mechanism is half the battle.

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Summary for revolutionaries

By now most of the core concepts have already been presented. I will now summarise them down to the essentials, and the easiest thing to do is drop in one or two relevant ones when required, and then repeat them whenever possible, as it takes at least three repetitions before most people are even aware of what you've said, least of all remember and assimilate it. Studies have shown repetition is essential in education as unless someone's studying officially then they're not in 'learning mode' so need to be gradually introduced to new concepts over and over and over again (see how I did it there?) until they almost become so bored with it they have taken it on as part of their own being.

There is a difference between fact and opinion, and valid to assert some facts are bad or wrong if they hurt more people than not, or are totally bogus. Black and white simply means certainty, just like a doctor's diagnosis or jury's verdict. You are either pregnant or guilty or not, nothing in between. When people try and accuse you of having opinions remember you have already learnt and prepared your material (another essential for a student and a revolutionary) and they almost certainly haven't. I have spent years learning what is apparently genuine but actually bogus to save others doing the work, and as I specialise in this area then unless someone can prove me wrong in any area (and my points have been corroborated by plenty of others before I present them) then you can accept they are genuine.

So running through some of these essential facts (remember, repetition is essential):

You must always try and do the right thing, and notice when others do not, branding them as the enemy (until and unless they repent).

If a formula proves anything costs more than it produces (wind turbines, domestic solar panels, low interest rates, Hutchison Rabbits etc) then they are worthless and have no place existing in the beginning. This also applies to specific products which are clearly not fit for purpose.

You cannot merge unrelated areas, so scientific measurements of the climate are no more than that, however much people try and claim the details are in some way political. They are no more political than a doctor's measurement of your vital signs, but they want you to believe that to divert you from the true facts.

Politicians are not out to help you. They are working for themselves and their friends and families, if anything they do helps you as well it's either a bribe or a coincidence (normally depending on how close an election is). Quantitative easing and low interest rates, not to mention closing coal power stations, carbon taxes, wind turbine subsidies and dare I say it gay marriage prove beyond any doubt, as (besides gay marriage which is just a divide and rule tactic to demonise normal people who always assumed marriage was only possible between a man and a woman) you know from the accounts and their bottom line the people always lose from them and the bankers win.

If someone cheats, they may profit but their character will be permanently smeared unless they abandon their old ways.

Inflation means higher prices. There's no way anyone can spin it to make it a good thing under any circumstances, it makes everyone's savings and earnings worth less. More so for house prices as they cost far more than anything else.

Opinions can never be facts. Again, if you believe gay marriage is 'equal' and Britain (why just Britain?) should be multicultural these are not facts, but two perfect archetypes of ideology. Their proponents treat them as facts as it is the best way to demonise and quell the opposition. But they are still choices and opinions as there are equally valid alternatives which were in place for centuries or more before they happened.

Ignore all predictions. Either something is part of a linear system like the movement of stars and planets, so totally predictable, already planned in which case it's not a prediction, or making it up based on more or less evidence, but not anywhere near certain. It's better to deal with what you know and let things happen and deal with them if they do, and not divert your attention from the present.

Logic never changes. For example, however important someone is, if they tell you something may happen after you're dead but you must still pay to stop it happening they are lying and cheating. A mock auction or protection racket never change their formats, buying something in a sealed box or paying for something bad not to happen, only the presentation does constantly. Recognise that and you'll never get caught.

Stereotypes are real. They are caricatures, or exaggerations of genuine characteristics of any group, both recognised as accurate by those within it and those familiar with them. It is no different from classifying animals and breeds of animals, which no one has ever (yet) suggested is politically incorrect. And why does recognising (including as many positive as negative qualities) traits become derogatory if it is accurate in general? You can't have an idealised archetype or stereotype without a collection of known traits. It is only derogatory when incorrect, in which case it's not a stereotype but an insult which is totally different.

Discrimination. Never let anyone else tell you the known meaning of words is different to the dictionary, including the matching pair of discrimination and equality. You can only be discriminated against if not treated equally, so having women only short lists, quotas and racial preferences for jobs you are discriminating against men and the ineligible races, regardless who you claim you are favouring. If it was a men only short list no one would deny it discriminated against women, so why is a women only short list supposed to be different?

Induction has a single known exception. If you thought something was not possible before, like exceeding the speed of light or someone running a mile in under four minutes it is not induction to say if it's happened once it's true, unlike a record hot day, year or low ice cover. If there are 364 other days in the year and they are not records then a record hot day means nothing, or a year if the others are not. But if it breaks the highest known temperature ever then it means that is possible, but does not imply anything greater. That would be induction to do so.

Logic beats qualifications. Professionals are taught to originate facts and measure details, if they make a mistake anyone can add up or spot a false conclusion without needing to know how the theory that created the figures works. Otherwise nowhere would use a jury.

Judge a tree by its fruit. If you are suffering or using poor quality products, then any reason given for it cannot be justified, and those providing the products or causing the suffering are clearly no good or their treatment or products would be adequate. If a great man does bad things then he cannot any longer be, or ever have been, a great man. You apply it to your own politicians and experts to see who is who.

Tuesday, 11 February 2014

Black and white issues

I am often criticised for being too certain over my statements, but imagine you went to a doctor or solicitor and they said things like 'well maybe, possibly, it depends' etc. how much confidence would you have in them. It then splits into facts vs opinions, and then finally how certain the facts are.

So basically I would only present what some see as opinions as facts when I am certain enough they are from my own research. The list so far, with reasons, includes:

Wind turbines are worthless. This is because overall the bottom line does not make a profit. Why? 1) Wind blows randomly so can never supply a constant source as provided by a power station using any fuel. 2) They consume power to reduce the total when removed from the power produced. 3) Much power is produced when not required so vanishes and is wasted. There are many other costs and depreciations involved, including the cost of grids and maintenance and short life, but when all these factors are presented as a profit and loss account, they are worthless. As I spent months looking for this information and confirmed it twice over then it is accurate to say 'Wind turbines are worthless and should never exist beyond for a single building'.

Inflation is bad: If you have £1000 in the bank at zero interest (as in current accounts), if inflation is 2% a year (as planned by our wonderful government), that means if nothing else changes your £1000 is worth £20 less a year. Every year. Yes, they try and avoid it being higher than that (with varying success), but they actually deliberately manipulate the economy to maintain a 2% floor. All your money is always worth less every year as a result. That's theft.

Road humps: You are driving along a normal road, residential or main, and they put lumps of concrete on them (even where the speed limit has not been reduced), which normal cars were not designed to handle. They force the wheels to fall vertically, something not designed in the suspension for normal usage, and as a result wears and damages the car far faster for absolutely no known reason, as if you really want to slow traffic down there are many other ways of doing so physically. The possible real reason (I think Kingston Council Liberal Democrats or another nearby group have now finally admitted it) is to put people off driving cars and use public transport, the same reason many ban car parks in new flats. But of course public transport and emergency vehicles use the same roads, and Barnet Council published in the local paper the number of deaths per year caused by ambulances either not reaching the patients in time or the hospital in time once they'd collected them. There is not a single reason to spoil road surfaces and the results are well known and documented, and councils put aside hundreds of thousands a year to pay for the damage caused to vehicles.

House price rises are bad: If you pay £10,000 for a Nissan in 2000, and earn £15,000 a year, then if you sell it in 2005 and buy a new one for £15,000, while your pay is only £17,000, your car has gone up more in percentage terms than your earning, inflation has reduced your purchasing power, and as a result you are poorer. Imagine the difference spending ten times plus more on a house. They can easily go up 10% a year over a five year period, while wages have barely risen in the same period to 2014. Of course this applies to your own house if you already have one, but unless you want to swap for one no better, that % means the more you want the more you'll pay, so the difference between the one you're selling and the one you're buying has grown by that much. £100,000 in 1990 for £150,000 would require an additional £50,000. fast forward to say 1997 at maybe 50%, and your £150,000 house will be up against the identical house then which is now £175,000, a difference of £75,000. You can never catch up as the gap gets wider every year ad infinitum. Now imagine you have nothing to sell and are saving up for a deposit. You'll need maybe 8-10X your annual income in total for a mortgage, opposed to 3-4 times maximum (enforced by internal policies) in the 70s. Therefore (unless you do not live in it but have extra ones as a business, which a small percentage of owners do) rising house prices are a bad thing for every homeowner, as even property barons own their own home as well and suffer the same consequences trading up.

Positive discrimination is discrimination: Turd polishing. It is like talking about fragrant faeces, or an honourable death. But it's still shit and the person is still gone. If you put a woman or ethnic minority up for a job instead of anyone else, it's just discrimination. Don't shit me trying to call it anything else.

Not fit for purpose: I've already covered wind turbines, and the principle I call the 'Hutchison Rabbit', where a new product is created which doesn't do more than something already in existence, but less, and even costs a lot more, then it should never have existed. They are a con, and the only difference between a privately manufactured product and one forced on us by law is the customers have eyes to see the dubious private product (ie the Hutchison Rabbit) and not many people will buy it so it will die a rapid death, as it obviously did. They sold a mobile phone which could only be used near an antenna, couldn't receive calls, and cost a bomb for rental and use. Or you could use a phone box which at the time cost about 20p and you could be called back, and there were a lot more than Rabbit points. What would you expect if instead of the glossy adverts you were listed these genuine examples? Run a mile probably.

Now this principle is bloody simple, all you need are the basic facts. So, I will do the same for solar panels now, which are the equivalent of leaving your food in the garden instead of the refrigerator. Some days it will be just right, while some nights it will be fine but not during the day. You'll know roughly when it will be suitable or not, but because of government benefits you will leave it out every single day and night anyway as the government will pay you if some of it goes off anyway.

Now I don't think many people would suffer randomly chilled food for any amount of money as apart from anything else it's a health hazard, and as they need a refrigerator anyway it wouldn't save any money taking the food out and leaving it outside when it was cold. Even though it's free. So that's your cooling taken care of. Buy a fridge and don't be silly messing around with nature to do the job it wasn't designed to do. Now what's the opposite of cold? Warmth. And what causes it? The sun. When does that come out? Sometimes, but unlike the cold, ONLY during the day. An average of half the time, but only 8 hours in the cold winter and 16 in the hot summer. Except you really need heating and light when it is cold and dark, but there is no sunlight whatsoever, and every single night when there isn't either. Yes, you can, on a very long sunny day, if you all work and are out during the day not cooking or watching TV, store that in a battery so you can do so after dark, but how many time? A few months a year maximum. The rest of the time the batteries are not operating a surplus so all power the sun produces is so little it is used just turning on a few bulbs a day. Unlike satellites that can whizz around on solar panels for years, the earth's atmosphere reduces sunlight by 25 times. It's diffused by clouds and dust and is so weak you can only ever convert the remaining energy into low voltage not suitable for domestic use but only individual low powered items like watches and calculators. That is the nature of solar, and they say they are around half the maximum possible conversion factor currently, but double not much is still not a lot and never could be. Plus once you reach outside the tropics the angle of the sun is so low most of the year the rest is lost as it can't clear the horizon. At the peak at midday you get 100% for a couple of hours, but only in summer. The rest of the year outside the tropics it won't get 1/2 the height for most of the time so you lose even more exactly when you need it. Therefore even the little they can produce is done in the exact opposite proportions to when you need it.

Therefore, black and white, solar panels for domestic power are not (and can never be) fit for purpose. I have done the figures.

Electric cars may work one day if and when they can be charged in minutes. There are however insurmountable problems even if they do. One is that they use the same source for traction and power, so rather than do miles per gallon and have a fuel gauge telling you how much is left, if it's cold, dark or wet you need the electricity for lights, heating and wipers. That uses as much power as moving, and will wreck your predicted mileage. Of course you could always drive as if it will be dark and wet but you'll never be able to go very far if you do. And unlike ordinary cars, if you can charge in minutes and still run out (as cars often do, and you can predict when they'll run out of fuel) what exactly do you do if one of them does? Get a breakdown truck to get you there, maybe an hour or two later. But unlike the ordinary car, you can't work out how to get fuelled before this is even possible, and is impossible to change. So the single issue which could be fixed, the charging time (unless you're at home) all the others are in their nature (like relying on random wind) and therefore unfit for purpose. If you don't believe me just buy one and wait till it snows. And till then what about if you run our in town and want to park up at one of the growing number of free charge points? If you're clever enough to catch one before you really need it, what exactly would you do for the few hours it's trickle charging? And what would your employers think?

Ponzi schemes: These are any mechanism where a sum of money is taken, nothing is produced, and some people are given a profit which is taken from the losses of the rest. Of course normally this is illegal (but not always if run by a government who can legalise whatever they like) but Bernie Madoff did it for years unnoticed and only got busted during the crash when scared 'investors' started trying to withdraw their money and of course it was long gone paying everyone else's interest.

Solar panels sell because the users are offered ten times more than market rate for any unused power, and although this can still often take many years to break even it sucks millions of useful idiots in, but all they are doing (considering I have hopefully just demonstrated domestic solar panels are not fit for purpose) is moving money from the taxpayers to the customers to fulfil EU and domestic laws requiring people to switch to renewables or be heavily fined as a government. So it costs them less (nothing actually, as we pay through higher prices directly) than the money they'd have to pay if they didn't offer subsidies. It's a con. Carbon trading is a legalised Ponzi scheme, economics and contract law mean you must have a product or service which can be delivered and owned, and you can't do that with carbon credits, they do not actually exist in any physical way, or represent a physical commodity such as gold, part of a company or rights to future benefits such as currency or interest rates. The derivatives market, as I have just described in part, still represents a share of a solid commodity, cash, even something as intellectual as an insurance policy or mortgage, which is a contract with strict requirements to pay the bearer under specific circumstances. But not carbon credits. They are issued by governments, given or sold to companies, who then sell them on the stock market. In a circle. Like a Ponzi scheme. Nothing is created, nothing is produced, no value is added and all it does and can ever do is move the same money around, like a Ponzi scheme, therefore carbon trading is a Ponzi scheme.

Overall, if you know something, it's a fact, black and white, right or wrong. Some, like the global warming story, are uncertain in their status, but are still able to take the facts they provide and pass them through the system of logic and weight, and come out with a reasonable factual assessment. And 99% correct is the conclusion that taxing poor people for their energy to possibly save people 100 years ahead from slightly warmer temperatures would sound so ridiculous if in a film then why is it any less ridiculous in real life? So that again I'd say is 99% wrong, very slightly grey maybe, but making old and poor people die of cold for a totally unknown and uncertain future to me also seems pretty definitely bad. Use your own logic and it soon becomes second nature.

Tuesday, 4 February 2014

The case for global warming

In getting on for what must be a decade of global warming research, first as I was interested in it, and then as I saw it fall apart within a few years of the original stories, I very rarely come across anyone with the means to defend it when they attempt to. I realised something, if all the activists can only raise weird and abstract arguments for their case which amaze me in their entire emptiness of substance then what case do they have? Clearly diddly-squat. Let me go through them and you can make up your own minds:

1) 97% of scientists agree on man made warming.
2) This is the same sort of misinformation as given by tobacco companies.
3) You must be working for big oil.
4) You can't pollute the world and expect to get away with it.
5) You can't alter the composition of the atmosphere without causing problems.
6) Your information is not peer reviewed/from a blog/from a site sponsored by oil companies.
7) "You are insulting science"

Working through them,

1) This is based on a survey of under 100 results, as from the original few thousand most were rejected on various grounds (you tell me), until they reached the responders they considered qualified. The question was so vague (basically 'do you believe mankind is affecting the climate') it was very hard to disagree with, so naturally forms a false positive. There are well over 100 specialist scientists who say mankind's contribution is negligible, so they are clearly a very significant minority.

2) Smoking and health is a discrete measurable correlation, albeit requiring some years and large samples to demonstrate, but the damage to lungs can easily be seen on X rays and the tar and nicotine are stored in them, as seen in autopsies. There is absolutely no way it is possible to hide the damage caused by smoking where the CO2 added to the atmosphere cannot be seen to do anything directly, unless the temperature rises sharply, which it hasn't.

3) Big oil support global warming research, Shell and BP among others helped found the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. There are no oil companies as such, there are oil fields and companies who own the oil, but very few only supply oil, all supply energy from any source required including renewables if paid to do so, as they are, with guaranteed profits of 2-10 times that of fossil fuel, so they are definitely not employing anyone to discount global warming, quite the opposite. Their fossil fuel may run out, and will need alternatives, so being both paid to develop them through taxes and restricting the use of fossil fuel which puts the price up is a win-win situation for oil, gas and all energy companies.

4) This produces the classic philosophical fail of the leading question and false premise. Pollution is defined as noxious substances which are somewhere they do not belong. Plants and animals need an optimum amount of CO2 for the carbon cycle, otherwise all plants would die, no oxygen would be produced, so all the animals would also die. No one knows the exact effect of a 50, 100 or 200% rise until it happens as we have no direct experience of it, but we do know through simple experiments CO2 needs to be 10,000 ppm to restrict our breathing. Up till there people's lungs grow to increase the relative uptake of oxygen as they do if living in the Andes or Himalayas. Of course pollution is bad, but is CO2 pollution? I can't exactly see how.

5) The UN clearly state the advantages of warming may be overtaken by the problems at a 2C rise. Till then the clear message is overall conditions will be beneficial, from fewer deaths from cold and greater food production and lesser energy usage among others. Until the problems occur you cannot predict what will happen as we haven't experienced anything like this directly before.

6) Maybe or maybe not (they are often wrong), but what about the information? If a graph is correct then whichever source has shared it is unrelated to the graph itself. They are diverting attention from the facts as they can't deal with them directly.

7) No, people are making errors. If I mark an essay with ticks and crosses, I am not insulting the writer when mistakes are picked up, I am pointing them out and hopefully helping them not to do it again. If scientists make mistakes, no one is being personal when they point them out.

The truly amazing thing is the restriction of  almost identical responses received, as if they are either from a small team of a few people (which they are not, they are repeated like mantras by millions worldwide as if programmed), which if nothing else implies a few people are creating the memes (despite none being fit for purpose as none address actual absence of significant warming on the back of increased CO2 so totally valueless) and those recycling them have no personal questioning or responsibility for repeating them, so it is impossible to challenge them as they have not worked out these responses themselves but just repeating what they were told to. How can a genuine theory be based on so little evidential material leaving them to resort to no more than utter nonsense which breaks every rule of logic on one page. I have not even included induction here as it speaks for itself. If it's warm it's warming, if it's cold it's warming, and this applies for however long it lasts or otherwise, and however local or general it is. Despite telling us (we know already) not to use weather, not only do they always raise weather for their case (the great majority of academic papers not actually set decades or more ahead simply focus on minute local details and induce from them, which peer review is supposed to reject). Unless it's both worldwide and long term (ie more than a few years, 15 to 20 according to them for pauses in warming, extending to over 30 when the pause overtook 15 years) it's not really indicative of anything much.

I have not included ocean acidification, mainly as of course it's entirely unrelated to the temperature so something which should not be introduced into an argument about it, but also the ocean is alkaline, fresh water is acidic, and all the life survives larger swings in pH value than those expected from added CO2 absorption, so it is not only a harmless result, but one totally divorced from the topic in hand. They also refer to coral bleaching, which many papers explain is unrelated to warming and temporary.

Finally, here are some examples, mainly courtesy of that wonderful source of unfiltered fertiliser, Skeptical Science, which appear to be one of the major roots of this disease.

"Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?" (answer, it's local, weather, short term and if using absolute not relative measurements hardly at all).

"[JH] Jakobshavn Isbræ (Jakobshavn Glacier) is moving ice from the Greenland ice sheet into the ocean at a speed that appears to be the fastest ever recorded." Local conditions only.
""But there's a flip side to this American success story. Even as our nation is pivoting toward a more sustainable energy future, America's oil and coal corporations are racing to position the country as the planet's dirty-energy dealer... – supplying the developing world with cut-rate, high-polluting, climate-damaging fuels. Much like tobacco companies did in the 1990s – when new taxes, regulations and rising consumer awareness undercut domestic demand – Big Carbon is turning to lucrative new markets in booming Asian economies where regulations are looser. Worse, the White House has quietly championed this dirty-energy trade." - Tim Dickinson - Rolling Stone
Illustrates most of my points quite nicely, and brings politics into it which isn't related to science.
"When asked whether they believe the Earth has been warming over the past 100 years, large percentages of Americans said yes, according to preliminary findings presented in November 2013 by researchers of the Stanford Woods Institute fo...r the Environment at Stanford University"
Politics, appeal to the masses, irrelevant to actual science.

"Чарлз Картр The big oil companies have spent millions trying to counter the evidence for anthropogenic global warming, but just like the tobacco companies when they tried to combat the science exposing the dangers of their product, it has all been for naught. The overwhelming evidence, along with the consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists (as well as the rest of the scientific community) is crystal clear. It's real. Get over it. Sorry you can't keep up. The truth always comes out. No matter how much you people try to blow smoke, the evidence will keep piling up and the consequences will keep coming home to us. Keep burying your heads in the sand. The rest of us will bury your irrelevant denialism in the past where it belongs."

This represents 99% of global warming supply and response. Short term and local conditions extended to the general (against the rules of science) and long term predictions within a non-linear complex system (against the rules of science, with responses being personal attack (irrelevant), non-sequiturs (ditto), false premises and diversionary tactics.

And one from one of their supporters:  " If the carbon tax were done correctly, to be used to help mitigate the drivers and the effects of global warming , it will be liberating to people and anything but slavery."

Here's a typical deluded example from one of the mind controlled minions:

"Many of us recognize that we are shouting warnings to people sitting in houses that are on fire ....... people who will deny the fire and will fight any rescue attempts others will "impose" on them ....... so be it.

Some of us will simply present the facts and do what we can to improve the situation knowing full well that there will always be detractors while the ashes of their houses stare them in the face.

We are not trying to spread doom and gloom .... we are expressing caution. When the canaries in the mine signal that it is time to clear out of the mine, some will choose to stay and try to wring more out of the vein of coal, gold or whatever ...others will head to the surface or to the safety stations.

You get to choose your actions but you do not get to choose the consequences."

Not a single word of reality in the entire statement.

Forget the poor people who spend more and more of their capital on heating as it is an essential, and thousands die every year as they can no longer afford it at all.

If global warming was genuine and solid the data would speak for itself, and all the proponents would need to do would be to present it in simple items, which of course they can not, as there are none, shown by what passes for data from Skeptical Science and all who supply them. They have lost as they have no serious case to present and even less to defend. There is simply nothing of substance there whichever way you look at it.

As a reader criticised this post for being light on science (that's on other posts here but never mind) here are the basics, from the UN directly and their suppliers of data:

Temperature rise required for benefits to be outweighed by problems: 2C
Amount of increase from 260ppm CO2 1C
Amount added by doubling CO2 (at any level as it reduces with concentration) 1C
Amount added after a 50% rise in CO2 0.8C
Amount the 0.8C is attributed to CO2 c0.5C
Positive feedback (temperature amplification) from added water vapour from oceanic evaporation and less ice reflecting heat back so far: zero, possibly negative.
Models overestimated temperature in 2010s by more than double.
Models unable to factor in the two major coolants, cloud cover and aerosol dust.
Sea level rise in 20th century c7 inches
Sea level rise so far in 21st century if extended to 2100 c7 inches.

I see not only no signature of man made warming here (whatever the cause of the CO2, as if it follows warming then it is released by the sea after it warms, not mankind) but a positive absence of any feedback making the bare 1C rise from doubling CO2 the maximum possible, as with a 50% rise already it is clearly not happening.