Thursday, 25 September 2014

Climate models, the weakest link in the chain

As most climate science is based in the future (we are less than half way to reaching the 2C point, and currently quite unlikely we can at the current trend) then we must look at the reason the world accepts the theory, which is almost totally based on nothing. Unless you compare virtual simulations of the world's entire climate with the linear predictable models of the solar system and galaxies, and treat them as real, then those models are no different from the visions of a woman in a man's mind during masturbation, they may look quite convincing but can never compare with the real thing.

Like all serious lies, they start with some truth, the linear elements of climate, Milankovitch and sunspot cycles (even though the UN claim solar changes account for less than 10% of temperature), oceanic oscillations and long and short ice age cycles, that is only enough for the general patterns and not anything beyond. Add anything like CO2 and run the timeline ahead and you are simply ripping off the public like a fake medium. Why is that? Well besides the UN's personal statement in 2001 saying so ("The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.") that is a blanket statement, it refers not to the quality of climate models, as some enthusiasts claim, but their nature, like water not flowing uphill or houses built on quicksand. No amount of scientific progress can change something based on pure dust and faeces.

What actually happens when you add CO2, methane or volcanic ash into the atmosphere is obvious even to primary school pupils. They learn all this in geography as I remember, you start with the wind, which distributes the weather and particles wherever it chooses, and the ocean currents which do the same on the surface. The wind is not unified at any point but varies at all heights and has eddies and vortexes as that is its nature. It has overall directions most of the time, as do ocean currents, but can swerve on a sixpence. The jetstream which carries the most influence on surface weather rises and falls in height and location and is notoriously unpredictable, why every season in Britain has been wrongly guessed by the Met Office as far back as I can remember. But apart from the basic CO2 adds 1C each time it doubles, the rest of the factors causing positive (water vapour) or negative (clouds and aerosol) feedback can't be modelled. I've been told since 2001 they are better at doing this, but that is like saying chimpanzees are better at talking. They may be able to manage a few words eventually but they cannot and will never be able to hold a conversation. Have scientists  tried to model the human mind, and if not why not? I don't even think a single one would try, let alone claim it could be possible, and if you think the entire planet's atmosphere is any less complex you must be a scientist. Except they don't, as they're best qualified to know, which can only mean they are using their superior knowledge to take advantage of people with less, and pretend they can do far more than every single one of them knows they can do, unless they are deluded as well as dishonest.

Some problems simply do not have a solution. Wind turbines can never produce power when there isn't enough wind, and you cannot make predictions outside a linear system. You can't make the wind blow more often or the sun shine at night to power solar, and however good the computer and knowledge of systems you can never improve models of open systems to predict the future. The longer you run ahead, currently the greatest practical application being long range (3-6 month weather forecasts) the wider the error margin, and with the dire results from Britain's seasonal forecasts show you simply can't collect all that information and expect to process it in a way which can see where a single storm will be the next day reliably, so how can you see trends over more than a few months let alone 300 years according to the UN report, after they said it wasn't possible.

Returning to my old theme, logic trumps absolutely everything. There is no exception to this. What's the difference in claiming you can model a human mind, and then a specific one, with all its memories and life experience and abilities, and you'd laugh it away as science fiction. As is predicting long term climate, from temperature to secondary events as sea level and extreme weather. They are making it up, literally.

Plenty of experts admit this, even of all people James Hansen, the godfather of alarmism:
"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."

Scathing MIT Paper Blasts Climate Models as 'Close to Useless' & 'Can get any result one desires Robert S. Pindyck 

" These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome"

 The modeler has a great deal of freedom in choosing functional forms, parameter values, and other inputs, and different choices can give wildly different estimates of the SCC and the optimal amount of abatement. You might think that some input choices are more reasonable or defensible than others, but no, “reasonable” is very much in the eye of the modeler. Thus these models can be used to obtain almost any result one desires. [Pindyck p. 5]

Tuesday, 23 September 2014

I am not a climate scientist (but I understand the science)

The difference between pure climate science, using equations to work out the heat and IR balances etc, and what happens at each level of the atmosphere with the heat hitting the molecules in and out, and simple statistics which is far easier to follow. It is very possible to apply basic statistical rules without knowing any advanced methods, as if you have a complex system with innumerable inputs and measuring difficulties, you are still not applying advanced science as in high level equations, just pretty basic stuff with a heap of data.

The same rules apply however many variables you are working with, and the one about running a system forwards and the error margin widening over time is something you learn pretty early in the courses, and one similar example is the motion of a jet of water as the actual surface pattern is so complex it is virtually impossible to model. And not as complex as the climate. The nature of running complex non-linear models forwards itself is a false belief as they are attempting to carry out the impossible. The false positives they get are because within the chaos you have some basic cycles which can be predicted as they are linear- the ice age pattern repeats like clockwork as it is based on the same mechanisms which allow exact predictions of planetary bodies. But the rest of it- adding different gases etc is not based on the cyclic motion of planets but letting something with no physical boundaries into a moving stream of air with countless wind systems moving it around in ways the forecasters get wrong each day as often as they get right. But by looking at the correct elements of the models based on planetary movements they pretend it means every other random element can be predicted almost as well. Therefore you need the very least knowledge of climate science to work out the falsehood of models as it is based on basic rules of statistics.

Break down the data into individual items, then start putting it back together. This is little different in accounts or statistics. Then look at the results. You really don't need to be a climate scientist who can explain all the phenomena with causes and effects to see their quality. If it doesn't follow the basic rules of statistics, accounting or logic then it's almost certainly wrong. Just because someone's an expert doesn't make them perfect, and once a mistake is made and persists then everything above it will be based on it. That is why the climate models, which cannot work for the future as they break the rules of logic and science equally, must be void, and you don't need any qualifications to work it out and demonstrate it.

Sunday, 21 September 2014

A list of known climate errors

When most of any area is based almost totally on trust, then you need a comprehensive list to expose any examples where the material has been less than reliable. Here is the one for man made global warming, including any possible reasons or outcomes.

"Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035" IPCC report. Error, they meant 2350, except it was later admitted it was deliberate to make people act more quickly.

"Himalayan glaciers are losing 70 million tons a year" They weren't, it was made up and then someone went and measured them, they hadn't lost anything at all. It was a pure lie.

Predictions themselves are asking for failure as under the 2001 IPCC statement ""The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

Then only a few percent of the 95 model runs from the 90s they made didn't go way above today's temperatures.

Al Gore and James Hansen said Arctic ice would be gone by 2010.

NASA's Aqua satellite discovered water vapour was being replaced by CO2 at the crucial levels, greatly reducing the greenhouse effect.

.. “There is an absence of warming.and it's a travesty we can't explain it.” Kevin Trenberth, comparing the actual temperatures with the models.

Al Gore's film repeated and enhanced many actual scientist's claims, and was found in a British court to have over 15 material errors.

Millions of climate refugees were expected by now, there haven't been any at all.

Here are some more 

More to follow. 

Inflation is never a good thing

Following from my exposure of governments planning inflation deliberately (why it's called a target rather than an aim), I have heard so many idiots on the radio praising price rises I must do my best, not as an economist but basic in accounting, why it can never be a good thing for anyone.

If you start with the obvious, your food and energy costs are essentials, and if they go up you earn the same and have less for everything else. If everything else goes up you have more and more set back for essentials less for luxuries. The only people who benefit from rising prices (albeit temporarily, as they have to spend the money on things themselves which have also gone up) are investors, actual consumers can never gain from prices going up, as if they have the same amount it won't go as far. Obviously.

Then they still cheer when their house is worth more, they paid less so are in their minds paying less now than its worth. No, they are paying what it was worth to them the day they bought it, and have a fixed loan which will never change whatever it is worth today. And come the time they sell it then every penny will be lost when they buy another one, none of it will be theirs unless they trade down, and then if they do they will never be able to return where they were in future unless they earn a lot more, as however much the current property goes up (inflates) all the other better ones will do more. It's like any other balloon, pump them up more and the bigger ones will go from being 50% larger than the small ones to twice as big. You'll simply never catch up, either as a first time buyer, as you have no assets at all to liquidate, so totally dependent on your income, or as an owner, as whatever yours goes up the better ones must go up more as 10% of 500 is more than 10% of 300 etc.

Negative equity was raised as a downside, but that is the fault of the market and not the system. Anyone risking so much for a property not worth the amount has become an investor, and will suffer the same conequences as any other if their asset goes down. Unless they are forced to move then the usual route is to keep it and pay down the debt and then you will catch up. If not then you will still pay less for another one, if you have anything left, and it is so unusual it is barely worth considering, as negative equity only happens when there is such high inflation it becomes temporarily corrected. But as houses are essentials they rarely stay down that long so the problem usually vanishes on its own.

Otherwise it's pretty simple. You save money, inflation makes it worth less. You earn interest, it may not keep up with inflation. You earn the same, prices go up, same result. It's only the friend of crooks who borrow other people's money, invest it in things which go up slightly more than inflation, and fix the term of the loan so the longer it lasts the less they pay in real terms, assuming their asset beats the rise then they make a profit. They produce nothing, all they're doing is spending someone else's money and paying them to loan it out, and create absolutely zero in the process. Real business is adding value through work or production, and just because long term loans are reduced by inflation it wrecks the economy for absolutely no practical benefits.

The only good inflation (technically it isn't real inflation, as it only relates to prices) is wage rises, as they are the indications of a genuinely growing economy, so while China has the far larger economy than Britain, last time they told me each person earned on average 1/7 than Britain, so were many times poorer. Earnings to price ratio is the actual measure of economic success, so in Britain in the 60s you could buy a house for 3X average income, now it's 10X. Therefore Britain has shrunk its genuine economy (entirely through inflation) three times in 50 years, they are dropping while China is rising. We have peaked and are going down. But unless people understand inflation is a relative parameter between average/absolute prices v earnings they will get lost and fooled by businesses and governments every time. High prices are always bad, as if you sell high you still have to spend the money and everything else will have gone up as well so that money is worth less as all relative to earnings alone. So rising wages are the sign of health and rising prices the sign of fraud.

Tuesday, 16 September 2014

Totalitarianism, variations on a theme

I doubt many people are not clearly aware of what totalitarian government means, although fewer who are aware of what it would be like living under it. This is because partly some people born and brought up in such a regime are often unaware of any alternative, and like with Stockholm Syndrome, have become used to the restrictions and see them as normal. The other reason is those living in free countries who advocate totalitarian rules, but would be no different from anyone else in suffering if they were brought in. If you are in a free country which creeps towards totalitarianism then you may well notice the difference, and if it becomes bad enough will work to free yourselves from it, knowing exactly how it was before and now.

Most people however seem to be overly concerned with the different versions of totalitarian government, basically left (communism), right (fascism) and religious, but when you come down with an infection then only the doctor is concerned about the variety in order to treat you, you are just ill with a fever. Therefore I would suggest it is of utmost importance to first recognise and accept both entire totalitarian governments and then any new rules which comply with its requirements, than make much importance of which variation is being imposed at any time. If you're not allowed to travel without a permit, speak against the government, break religious laws (even if it's not your religion, like in Saudi Arabia) or wear what you like in public you're wasting your life partly, as from what we are aware of at least we only have one, and no one on earth has the right to impose their wills on you, even when you misguidedly voted for them like in Nazi Germany. Natural law, basically the golden rule of never treating other people badly, beats all governments. Therefore whether the rulers are the Communists or the corporations, your only life is being ruled for someone else's benefit at your expense, and God would never want a single person to live as they do in Iran for instance, as no God would tell anyone to kill or restrict people as they do there and all other religious extreme regimes.

Does it make much difference if the state owns and runs the businesses, or the businesses run the state? Either way they make the profits and we lose out, and the people are basically enslaved. The words you aren't allowed to use may be against religion, the government, or for freedom, but your speech is still limited by other people's wishes. Besides inciting a crime or lying to cause harm, there should be no restrictions on speech. If someone wants to call you a spastic or wog it's not nice, but insulting people is part of life and can't become a crime or we'd all be guilty by lunchtime every single day. The degree of insult, I hear you say? What is the harm caused by it? Is wog worse than jungle bunny, and if so, then why so? Is causing offence harmful? If it was we'd all be in therapy for the rest of our lives. Insulting and being insulted are not something dangerous and we grow up learning to see it as other people's problems and drop it back on their doorsteps, as taught in Buddhism and yoga. They don't care what people say as they know it's meaningless and empty words.

So the bottom line is look at the rules rather than their source. No version of being in prison is any better than any other. Would you prefer a fascist, communist or religious government? Or none of them?

Saturday, 13 September 2014

How to break a consensus

As the data itself can't pass muster, the climate community substituted actual measurements for a measurement of agreement. It's actually an urban myth, no more accurate than the Disney lemmings jumping off a cliff (they were pushed, check it out), but equally accepted by the masses. The John Cook masterpiece asked whether man was capable of changing the climate (ie no context, a variable missing, how much), so most said yes, and then the responses were filtered out from over 3000 qualified respondents to people qualified exactly as Cook required. Of course a sample so reduced from original is what they like to call cherry picking, so even if the question was a genuine one then without the others included you would have to ask what the result would be if they were, and also as it wasn't the entire exercise was not only of zero value, but less than zero as it's the opposite to the truth so less than nothing.

But as it's been taken and used to replace reality with agreement, something used by totalitarian collective governments worldwide, here is why consensus and science are not interchangeable, and by even deciding to use it as the major (or any) part of their ammunition it shows the material itself can't stand up and they have resorted to pure dishonest fabrication. Yesterday someone anonymously (it's always anonymous as these people are all still in their jobs and want to keep them, hence the delay in full exposure) admitted the entire Australian BOM government climate organisation knew the CO2 theory was crap, but they'd never had so much money before so had to make the most of it while they could. I've already talked about doing the right thing at all costs, as they now have more money and an indelible mark on their souls, and you can't take the money with you but when they die they will go down as liars and cheats. I'd rather be poor and honest myself, but I have developed beyond them, that decision alone is its own proof.

The only difference between anonymous confessions and named ones is their weight and value, not their accuracy. It is the first stage of the escape of the truth from a closed, organised cabal. With time and further investigations as a result the next more conclusive statements can follow. But this is not about the evidential value of a confession, or better still a corroborated confession (one with more evidence outside to support it), but the logical consequence of one.

If one member of a conspiracy confesses with evidence, then everyone involved is exposed as a conspirator. The fact with a number n of conspirators, however large n becomes, it only needs a single individual to expose them all as cheats. Remember, when you have a conspiracy you also have a very large consensus, at least 97%. Think about it. This means you firstly argue from consensus as the data does not stand up on its own, and secondly if you are part of a conspiracy without an almost 100% consensus it will not only fall but so will its members. The criminal consequences alone, besides the ending of major careers, are sufficient to attempt to maintain this consensus at all costs and efforts from their side indefinitely. I believe this is possible as the ones we do know about took a very long time to come out, and can't represent the total, just the ones which were not possible to cover up like Libor, Hillsborough and the Foreign Exchange fixing currently under investigation. These are all exactly the same as the global warming scam, using tight groups of powerful people and the media to ensure the public see the front activities, the legitimate business the drug running and arms smuggling is working behind. One mafia don actually made more money from the restaurant than the criminal activites run from the back rooms, but didn't close it down as it was his family tradition and he didn't want to leave the crime of his childhood behind him and let down the brotherhood. That is how it works. For some the crime feels even better than the benefits, as it provides them with a perverted form of power which is a greater turnon than anything gained from legitimate business.

So ultimately a consensus is the symptom of a conspiracy, as the two are the same thing. Agreement to commit a present or future crime between two or more people. If 1000 of 1000 people agree to commit a crime then it will be stable. If 999 agree and one changes sides and comes clean, they will actually bring down the entire 999 left, as technically a conspiracy requires 100% support to maintain, any less will bring in the investigators, and without burning and burying all the evidence once the authorities are on to them, then  once exposed the consensus will drop from 99.99% to zero. So taking this to the climate, if even one qualified expert with no job to support as they are retired exposes their peers as wrong, with scientific reasons, I would rather trust one of them than the thousands of dishonest conspirators. In fact there are many hundreds of said scientists, and their claims are supported with material which blatantly exposes error after error in the established material, and the fact even if 97% of scientists really agreed (which they really don't), it wouldn't make their data any more genuine.

Monday, 8 September 2014

Black and white issues

To extend a point best made by James Delingpole to illustrate the situation, if you attend a meeting where the debate is not whether to mix dog muck with yogurt, but how much, that pretty much sums up the distorted view of those who attempt to justify the unjustifiable, or present a balanced view on the mafia or cancer. You get the drift?

There are three basic situations here, none of which are the same, and two I have already addressed, the difference between facts and opinions. Here I will explain and demonstrate, I hope conclusively, the difference between those facts which are not negotiable, ie all good or bad, and the others where you can please some people most of the time but never everyone, such as utilitarianism.

By now most of you will have got the point already, but as I enjoy long essays I'll throw in some more examples and analysis, in case this possibly gets set as an exam topic. One can only dream. I recently heard a radio presenter ask for balanced calls on Britain's membership of the EU, and wondered how it was possible as we were either in or out. If we're in it's either better for us here (regardless of each other country who benefit according to their economic position compared to the amount it costs them to be in it) or not. The information may be hard to learn, but it's there in sufficient quantities for those who want to know to make an informed decision, and one I studied at degree level so can confirm this officially, and is not really capable of offering a balanced decision, as once you've collected enough information it's highly unlikely it will come out even, and almost certainly lean in one position or the other. The closest you can get to balance is by laying out the benefits (the random chance the odd EU law helps us by default rather than design) and burdens (everything else), although at the deepest level they have never signed off their accounts, burn and bury food to keep the price up, and deliberately invite in lame duck countries and break their economies, and now inviting in the rogue state of Turkey who fund terrorism. They are base crooks, no different from (and no doubt connected intimately to) the mafia. Organised widespread criminal control and work under secrecy (like the Commission mainly do), and run protection rackets (pay us more every year and the planet won't burn or melt) is pretty much how it is done, and the fact we don't yet have family executions is only because it would draw more attention to them rather than they are not capable of it.

If you're not sure, just swap the word cancer/death by torture/organised theft/boils, or any other plague you choose. Then extend the certainty towards the current issue and see how much clearer it looks.

The next category is subtler as it may include some surface or specific benefits, but when collected together is still worthless so despite people picking the handful of benefits and extending them to cover the entire issue, in reality it is no different from what they want to put in your yogurt. Wind turbines are complex but possible to break down into their individual components and then add up the total for a bottom line result. Although a few issues could be addressed through storage, most are inherent in their design so impossible to overcome, and are the core of their existence so if they can't change then the details are not important.

Wind turbines: Only work at the random times the wind blows in the exact range they generate power.

They consume power for brakes, starters, heaters and directional motors.

When they do generate is not related to the needs of the grid, much produced at peak areas is wasted as cannot yet be stored.

They only work a few percent of the day, the rest of the time the standby power stations take over, but as power stations need to be on the whole time as they take a week or two to get started then they are also wasting power the whole time they are not being drawn on, and in fact it is easier to dispense with the turbines altogether and use the generators instead.

Overall there is no practical function in a method of power generation that begins with a vast startup cost, plus maintenance, plus the grid, and produces power in random bursts which can't be stored. There is no way round this, you can't make the wind blow any more than it does, and is unlikely a practical system will be developed which doesn't do more than save trivial amounts at a massive cost to store the small amounts produced when not needed. It is not possible to build enough to find places where the wind is always blowing somewhere as you'd not only need much of the landscape to be covered with them, but it would cost most of the entire GDP and still not guaranteed to work. There is no solution to this problem as wind power is a few thousand years old, and was replaced by candles, gas and electricity for lighting and power for those very reasons. You would never have heard of a single engineer suggesting using a wind turbine for anything more than running small machines like weather stations, in a similar way solar has always been used effectively as the power drains are so low, unless the subsidies and guarantees were rolled out in the name of stopping global warming. Until they can power a hospital on wind alone (and I'll allow them solar backup as well) I don't think anyone is able to say otherwise.

Therefore although to some they appear to perform a useful function, if you look at the annual amounts generated by wind, and the costs to produce it, then you will see they are worthless wastes of resources which rust and fall apart in a decade or two (see the early ones rotting in California), and cannot be recycled that easily. The average power station takes up a small area and lasts around 50 years.

The levels of subtlety and subterfuge will increase, but the formula does not. Once you start analysing issues with these formulas it will start to become clearer when something has no alternative side and when it does. You could use mushrooms and toadstools, they look alike but we can all eat mushrooms, but some prefer not to. But we will all be poisoned by toadstools. Therefore it is not possible to argue either you should never eat mushrooms or mushrooms are better than broccoli as that is an opinion, but there can be no argument over toadstools. But the similarity without knowing and checking is very subtle. Therefore people can dress up issues which look just as similar on the surface, but learn the details and you discover they are offering you a fake, as it may appear to do something useful (like wind and solar panels) but in reality they either do nothing much, nothing at all, or are actually harmful. Either way they are all equally wrong and should not be presented with arguments as if they are all equally valid.

Another aspect is crime. Knowing the laws we can all apply them to acts well enough (as juries do every day) to assess whether a crime has been committed. But what if that crime is discovered by a government to be a real earner and is legalised as long as only they do it? Enron invented carbon credits when they had a huge loss to hide from their shareholders, and invented future energy profits to tide them over while they thought they could earn the money back legitimately. But the next year the new investors had been attracted so much they kept the system and expanded it, even though they no longer needed to, and eventually selling non-existent shares in air and imaginary power as their main operation as it was so profitable. This of course was fraud at the highest level, and when eventually discovered more by chance than planning the crooked board all went down for a long stretch.

This is now compulsory in Europe and many other countries to prevent global warming. Virtually the identical methods operated by Enron (as they were legalised and adopted by the Clinton government, albeit on a voluntary basis there as the Americans are too clever to vote for such rubbish), and then elsewhere, and made Al Gore into a billionaire for doing the same things Enron did and got them in prison. Therefore as they are a known Ponzi scheme, creating and generating absolutely nothing, carbon credits and trading are totally wrong. Arguing as the Australians did to change and vary the details of sheer theft was no different to which colour or texture of turd do they want to put in the yogurt. I mean, how much crime or cancer do you want to supply to the public in return for their support and taxes?

I hope everyone has got the point now. There is a clear area of good/bad polar issues, and some are obvious like cancer, the rest are just as certain but on a sliding scale of clarity. Just because some hind behind smoke, mirrors and respectability, claiming to produce free energy (like offshore wind, 12 times the cost of conventional power) or save the planet (the chemicals in solar panels will hang around forever once they wear out and cannot be recycled), you need to work your way through the guff to the bottom line, what does this stuff actually do? I can keep raising more examples for ages, but these should cover the range sufficiently to demonstrate everything you need to go out and stop the cheats out there claiming otherwise. We need as many to learn this as possible as even radio calls and internet discussions put the truth across and stop crooks and creeps claiming poo in your food is good for you. The other examples may need a lot more research to discover the similarity, but are no less useless.

Friday, 5 September 2014

Freedom- do you love it or hate it?

The wish for freedom on all counts is the indication of an independent mind free of outside programming as it is your natural state. You never give up your freedom without an extremely good present reason, and then for as short a period as possible. People are driven by the wish for freedom, yet many millions around the world have lost that innate drive by years of pressure from those in power wishing to impose their wishes on them and take it away. Of course it is impossible to ask people to hand over their freedom unilaterally, so reasons need to be created constantly which most people cannot or will not investigate to do so. This was reframed under communism by Hegel into a means to topple capitalism and bring about the rule of the proletariat. Hegelian dialectic
By creating imaginary fears in otherwise relatively contented populations, masses can be easily manipulated into demonising any scapegoat the rulers wish to use to jump into action and offer, nay insist, on neutralising it, at a huge cost of deaths in battle and through enforced rationing of resources and poverty. There is nothing new this time round besides the scale, and the people have never learnt from every previous example as by making each one different most people can't see the similarities.

Rule one, do not take anyone's word for anything. What makes the authorities able to be in charge? You do, unless they have taken it by force in which case you may not even be able to read this. You employ people (with your money paying them) to do the things we can't do ourselves. They are working for us, not themselves. If they start taking advantage of the position (as they all will) it's not just vital to stop them in any ways possible, but to firstly to actually know they are doing it. And before anyone says what about trusting people better qualified than myself, then I'd say that if they break the rules of logic in any way then they are using their qualifications to take advantage of those without them, and simply exploiting their power. And you can see it, don't let anyone tell you you're unable or incapable of seeing through tricks however bright and important the perpetrators.

For example, predictions are for primitive societies, not 21st century. If it's not part of a linear progression you can't make them. For example, the solar system is guaranteed to be wherever it is each day as it always has done. If you allow as many foreigners into a country as they please, and each year around 250,000 are added in total then unless the policies change that is a reasonable prediction that it will continue as you know the previous record. Outside such basic direct relationships everything else is virtually (as in long term weather forecasts) or totally worthless, as in nearly all others. If those in the highest authority, such as the UN and the world's top scientists start claiming they can make predictions you are being taken for a ride. It cannot ever be done in an open system, no exceptions. The longer the period the wider the error margin, yet the UN IPCC have some going as far ahead for the climate as 2300. They want to take your freedom away based on that and that alone, as the amount of the minimum 2C global warming they need to be a problem is 40%, and as even they say will not happen till 2050-2100 if it ever does at all. Meanwhile the trend since CO2 began rising is 0.05C a decade since 1850, a quarter of the 2C they expected right now.

Secondly, take no one's word for claims you can't test yourself. Is the temperature rising overall? If no one told you would you be able to tell, and if they did tell you would you be able to check it? In this case because of the internet you stand a fighting chance, although when you look for the first time you find three datasets- raw, adjusted and anomalies. My own research tells me this position allows it to be exploited and doctored, so whatever the actual temperatures were originally it is very easy to hide and alter them so much a trend can be created, see my linked fraud blog to see two entries dedicated to examples. Next, trust your own experience. If you live (as I do) in an area dominated by immigrants, years of experience will tell you more than any politician or pressure group ever can over the actual consequences. Increased crimes, especially knife, gun and random muggings, as well as credit card fraud and the like from the new Eastern European influx, are something we read in the local and national papers, and anyone living there can tie up (even without photos or names) the area with the likely perpetrators, and now the Rotherham sex ring has finally come to light which was covered up for well over a decade, each eventual honest report will confirm most suspicions.

Then the other pressures described in my previous entry simply from overcrowding, as well as the isolation and communication difficulties caused by large foreign communities speaking in their own languages (as we all would elsewhere and quite rightly so) and further employing mostly people from their own  and even advertising both in their language and country for people to come straight over, often without a word of English. If Gordon Brown and Tony Blair (although not Ed Miliband, as he wants to be elected rather than been and gone so don't mind what they say) call anyone racist or a bigot for pointing out the decline in the quality of life from cramming in millions of extra people into a small country, even the ones who can't be worked out till you hear them speak (as it is not specifically a racial issue at all), then if they speak against your own long term direct experience you are almost always going to be right. Muslims (we have to speak openly or accept everything the government does to us without question) demonstrate against western freedom and democracy, and are creating more and more Islamic zones in Britain (illegally) where they try and enforce the very restrictions they left behind in their own countries, and rather than enjoy the relief of coming to a free country are trying to remove it even for the non-believers. It goes against their own nature, and we must be both free to deal with such threats to our freedom, and be free to speak openly when anyone as they do become a threat to it. Isis have already said the west is next, and whether or not they are capable of it we don't want to take a chance and lie back and see. Nothing is more valuable than your freedom once your basic needs are cared for, and as seen in prison where even the poor can eat and have a roof over their heads their lives are empty. The most basic realisation, it's not death, the worst punishment of all is taking away someone's freedom.

It is an overall discovery, that when you wake up and realise high taxes don't usually go anywhere you can pinpoint, and many people in countries with very low tax like Estonia somehow manage perfectly well while others like France are steadily heading down the toilet despite a rampantly socialist interventionist government taking far more for ostensible better public services and less poverty. Curing poverty by taking money away is hardly a logical move. They tell you it's unfair for the poor/lazy/untalented to be worse off than the others, so take money from those who generally work hard and produce more than the others to even out the difference. Except in many cases although some of them do get small tax breaks and freebies to ensure the votes, the poverty gap never goes away whatever the governments try on, as it is impossible to even out people's wealth without a total police state, and in places like Cuba where that is the case, the inevitable result of evening out wealth is always to make everyone equally poor, even without the added US sanctions as there were queues for food across the USSR as well despite being rolling in money from gas and oil which was kept within the membership of the Communist Party while everyone else was in the gutter.

This is not corruption, it is the essence of left wing economics. Corruption makes it worse, but the actual philosophy and ensuing policies are innately corrupt, as it sacrifices individual freedom for the collective. As the collective, like a prison, is made up of individuals, then by creating the loss of individual rights for the collective it is effectively imprisoning everyone under that system. Travel restrictions are always the first sign of a totalitarian state, as besides crossing borders which is another issue entirely, freedom to travel and live anywhere in your own country is a given, and when it is restricted then you are no longer in a free country. The London congestion charge has stopped my neighbour leaving his children with his mother in the school holidays as he can't afford to go there each weekday. 20mph zones, humps and barriers make it harder for everyone to get around, slows down buses and emergency vehicles alike, and totally makes everything worse with not a single benefit. They don't stop accidents or save lives as more people die from ambulances having to slow down getting to a call or with someone on board, and barriers on roads mean people swerving to avoid them and the oncoming traffic they force into your lane will always outnumber any unknowable missed children, especially when drivers are busier avoiding hazards or watching their speed than the actual road conditions as they should be. The EU and UN plans to ban cars entirely from cities is just the next stage of this. Of course without the false myth of global warming (something even the heaviest adjustments have now failed to create in reality) people would revolt against such measures, but the sheep just bleat for even more and even faster. The useful idiots, another communist term for the masses who work to keep society in order, like a private police force, are essential to keep everyone down. Wake them up and it cannot stay there as we naturally bounce back when we are pushed down, because we are animals, and every animal (even the Muslims who demonstrate against western values of freedom and democracy as they have been programmed to do so) wants to be free.

So a simple principle to test every single rule and regulation, if this feels bad then it almost certainly is, and even if you currently have to follow it or be prosecuted, fight and work to have it removed. And tell people why and how it is wrong.

Wednesday, 3 September 2014

"It can't happen here"

This is an established theory in psychology, but one so important and relevant now everyone needs to be aware of it so they don't get caught in one of the most dangerous known illusions.

The theory is very simple. We watch the worst possible atrocities in the hotter and dirtier parts of the world, and all give a sigh of relief as of course, "it can't happen here". Why exactly not? Are humans one side of a border any better than the other? And if you look at your own history you will find it has happened here, just better hidden than the third world lunatics who have no opposition so no need to cover up their actions with weasel words and claims of being done in the public good. Examples, I hear you say? Well, besides many reports of the US military testing chemical and biological weapons after the last war by simply spraying them over the people and seeing what happened, more of that to come, Operation Northwoods revealed the first known false flag operation, where the CIA wrote plans to pretend Cubans had attacked America (the deaths would be very real) in order to gain support for attacking them. The fact Kennedy vetoed them (and look what happened to him) is irrelevant, as (using my rule of precedent) it means it has happened once and is clearly not just possible but quite probably standard procedure, this was just the one that leaked out.

The word which applies best to this situation is psychopathic, showing no regard for human life outside your own, so treat other people as not real but just things to be rearranged at will. People look at British law, and compare India, Nigeria and Italy as being corrupt, but it can't happen here. The current top industry in the Italian economy is the Mafia at 8% of GDP. We both therefore know Italy's reputation as crook central is genuine, the government must be part of it as if they are now officially recognising organised crime then it must be officially supported, how else could it exist? Then I read an article last week quite casually mentioning the entire city of Aberdeen (the one in Scotland, not Sicily) is run by the mafia. I was almost surprised, but as the mind behind the Information Revolution not quite, as it can happen here. Any time, anywhere, any scam.

Now what is the level of dirt? The lowest, of course. The second step people must take is to recognise the lowest level exists at all, and the activities of ISIS, casually walking in to towns in Iraq and slaughtering everyone not one of them, with absolutely no initial opposition, both proves humans can exist at that depth, it is not a few extreme individuals, but entire sections of society. Then take that and extend it, as if it's possible in Iraq, then it's possible here, including the US as I've just demonstrated, don't trust your governments. If they show any signs of trying something then don't just not trust them, condemn them and kick them out, and ideally get them tried for their crimes, breach of trust is one of the lowest of them all, and treason is also on the agenda once you analyse some of the worst acts.

Do you really believe ISIS are an isolated local bunch of nutcases? Well, besides the imported terrorists and their supporters the west have welcomed in to spread the love far and wide, they also recruit locals who were not brought up as radical Muslims, and one by one join the bandwagon while as they say on Crimewatch, it could be your neighbour. I am not actually trying to cause paranoia, but point out not only can everything that happens there happen here, but not to turn blind eyes to the most extreme actions of those outside government, as like the scams and killings carried out by the western subtle means, the same tricks can be carried out by both businesses (such as the claim made on Talk Sport by Ian Royce that his friend let slip his own company had long since found a cure for viruses and kept it secret), and powerful individuals. Psychopathy is not distributed locally, but evenly around society, and as their main motivation is power and control many will end up with plenty of it as a direct result. The only difference (also revealed in a study) between the success is whether they are openly crazy or not. Wolves in sheep's clothing befriend the herd, offer gifts and protection, and then ravage them in the night. Then they wash the blood off their sheepskins, cry crocodile tears the next morning, and go back in their role of head sheep. The others never see through it and just wander around looking for the murderer of their friend and family member.

So the solution is to be aware it exists and can happen here, and look for the signs. Don't assume ordinary people are tainted as most ordinary people have no power so would not be part of it. Just those with any power as that is possibly why they have it, and assume they are not just your friends, but against you, or at least indifferent to whether you live or die. If their company can get a massive arms contract for chemical weapons (Britain has far more than Syria, look up Porton Down for just a hint of our massive arsenal) it's not such a difference testing them on their own people than using them on others- after all, if you can even make them to be used then does it matter that much who they are being used on? That is the mentality, the mindset of using other human beings as pawns and killing or maiming them as part of experiments or business arrangements, much like those carried out wholesale by the Nazis who experimented on live people just as we do now with animals, which for the same reason I personally believe are no more moral. If you treat animals badly that in fact singles out many who went on to become killers, as cruelty to animals is the clearest sign someone is a psychopath of the lowest order. There is a hierarchy with psychopaths, each has their own boundaries, and the ones in charge probably have the fewest. They won't kill you for nothing, just when you are in their way or a means to gain something, the same goes for the other forms of harm. A small minority hurt for pleasure, but they will end up in confinement, the rest can regulate, and in the west at least, hide the vast majority of their actions, hire others to carry them out anonymously (Lady Di anyone?), and employ teams of PR merchants to divert everyone's attention.

But if you still don't believe me then just read some of my links on managed depopulation, by, you've guessed it, your friends and mine, the UN. The people set up to protect the world after the Nazis took over for a while. And they are carrying on exactly the same things under Agenda 21 but far better hidden as unlike ISIS people noticed the Nazis and got enough of the decent majority to stop them. You can't carry out major atrocities in public or the public will attempt to stop you if they have any opportunity to, or others will return to stop you going further after you wiped out your initial victims. You have to hide your actions indefinitely otherwise confidence will be lost and you will end up convicted of treason or war crimes, but like diarrhea, the truth will always eventually leak out, and people will smell the stink beforehand and notice. And if enough people are alerted in advance they can seek it out and deal with it before the entire system is poisoned with it.