Wednesday, 25 December 2013

Gordon Brown is the enemy

After years of criticism Gordon Brown, the economist, sold Britain's gold at the lowest price, now we discover why.

The banks had short sold gold, expecting the price to fall. It hadn't and they were set to lose billions when the day of reckoning came. Gordon Brown, being what is technically described as a corporate fascist (one guided not by the interests of the people who elected him, but the corporations who paid him), did not want this to happen, so announced he was going to sell the gold (insider trading) to get the price down (market manipulation) and then sold it so low it flooded the market and got the price down so far the banks could now honour their deals and not go broke. It was our money and we have been paying for it ever since.

And this was the traditional wing of the Labour Party. Who else could you trust?

The source

Sunday, 10 November 2013

Legalized fraud- structured financial instruments

Having presented how the officially fraudulent 'energy credits' used by Enron, creating non-existent future profits to attract investors, became legal as carbon trading, using the excuse most people still believe (even though it's hardly happened for years) of global warming, here's one better. Fraud actually allowed as far as I know worldwide (as these pieces of shit are traded worldwide) by allowing financial traders to sell mock auction lots, with the triple whammy of blaming the victim using due diligence, buyer beware, and official ratings. But the due diligence actually cancels out the official ratings, as like cheap beef sausages these lesser objects only need to contain about 3% meat, probably a lot less. The problem was customers were recommended these by dodgy companies before the 2007 crash, and by accepting the product without knowing this simple formula saw much of their wealth flushed down the toilet, as all the bad debts from sub prime mortgages and stratospherically leveraged companies (like 40-1 instead of the usual 3-1 debt-asset ratio).

The formula is so simple if you knew it you wouldn't touch one.

1) The contents of the package are secret, so much so many sellers did not have a clue what was in them.

2) The rating applies (the agencies know what's in them) as long as there's any AAA material in them, rather than rate according to the average risk.

3) All customers were permitted to know was the rating and very little else yet they bought in billions.

Imagine an honest broker (what are they nowadays?), I have a package for you they call AAA but technically the law (who made that?) says they are unknown and probably based on highly leveraged debt and mystery mortgages, from uncertified borrowers. Not many would have been sold then.

However, the real scandal is not that people were stupid enough (including huge companies) to fall for this utter crap even though a quick enquiry would tell you exactly what I just have, but that it is allowed by all the countries who allow trading in them. All of them as far as I know. So not just a few bent governments, like Britain (the freest market in the world according to Max Keiser, free of rules and regulations) let this garbage pass from seller to buyer, but as many as I have seen fall like cards when the defaults happened.

Here's a polite description while others prefer to tell it more how it is

"After 2001, a major, rapid transformation of financial markets occurred, as US banks and other retail institutions extended their loans to risky borrowers (subprime loans) and transferred these risks to the overall financial market using credit risk transfer instruments via securitization. CDOs of these mortgages were the most popular structured instruments for credit risk transfer. The AAA ratings that were initially attributed to many of these structures by the rating agencies were clearly erroneous, as many of these products defaulted when the underlying subprime loans started to default in 2005.
Subsequently, many of these structured products were downgraded by the rating agencies. By then, however, most of the damage had already been done.
During this period, securitization transformed low-grade assets into investment-grade assets via complex financial instruments such as asset-backed commercial papers (ABCP) and CDOs whose effective default risk was much higher than that of traditional AAA bonds. The crisis was accelerated because banks were under pressure from the financial market to increase the supply of high risk mortgages in order to generate assets with high yields in a period of low interest rates. This repackaging was very lucrative, which encouraged these CDO equity holders to issue a second generation of CDOs with lower yield, which in turn increased the demand for first-generation and mortgage-backed securities (MBSs). When the subprime loans started to default, these financial products externalized the damage to the international markets. This financial crisis has caused external damage to the real economy (unemployment) and the monetary economy (low credit conditions for consumers and business firms even if the prime rates of the Central Banks were very low). It has eroded confidence in financial institutions and rating institutions that induced consumers and investors to take large risks."
These are the official details, wise after the event. Of course, had everyone known that in 2001 onwards the financial crash would never have happened. And guess what, hardly any rules have changed, and now only large companies know to steer clear of this junk, not because it's illegal but because they've discovered what it really is. Unlike the current punters. If you want to learn more check out Max Keiser's numerous videos on the topic.

Friday, 11 October 2013

You've been had, big time!

Besides the expected sanitisation of the October 2013 UN IPCC report, removing all but the slightest traces of the 17 year ceasing of warming in the world, they did hide a single page of reduction of the majority of expected consequences of global warming which somehow the media managed to miss entirely. So while they raised the certainty of blaming you and me (yes, you) to 95% we are raising the temperature, the scope and consequences of such a raise were reduced (and in some major cases removed entirely) from the new report. I enclose the table here.

Now not the IPCC but the media chose to focus on the general rough conclusion, meaningful in no more than a political way, that now they are 95% certain man is creating warming. The details however were never entered into in any significant detail by a single report. But they are here, and I will work my way through them one by one:
Atlantic MOC collapse: I suspect they have put this in for the same effect it had on me. What the heck?
Ice sheet collapse: No
Permafrost carbon release: No (CO2 to you and me, ie no positive feedback there)
Clathrate methane release: Yes, but  very unlikely. In their own glossary, this means almost zero, so slightly above no just in case it ever did happen. This is more positive feedback much vaunted by the likes of Greenpeace out the window and from their claims (but not mine as I researched it) quite a big one.
Forest diebacks: Very unlikely
Long term droughts: Very unlikely
That's quite a lot gone now. What's not mentioned are the floods, hurricanes and tornadoes (not in this table at least) which many others prior to this report also raised figures for after President Obama claimed they had increased, but they haven't. So they probably won't either.
In conclusion:
The IPCC appear to be saying they are now almost certain man has warmed the planet, but the consequences are way below what they said in every other report, mainly  because they have had over twenty years to see what happened in the real world compared to their models.
To me, that says it all.

Wednesday, 2 October 2013

The New World Order has been revealed

 "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time
Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
forty years."

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a
world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national
auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

"Everything is in place - after 500 years - to build a true 'new world'
in the Western Hemisphere... And what happens if we don't pass NAFTA?
I truly don't think that 'criminal' would be too strong a word for
rejecting NAFTA."

David Rockefeller

He has admitted it now openly, the only fraud is the media he tamed has kept it quiet and leaves it to idiots like me to let people know and get torn apart as a result.

Monday, 12 August 2013

They are not our friends

I was told years ago the government are not our friends, and do not look after us but themselves. Anything they do in our favour is either a bribe or a coincidence. Once you have that view you start looking for examples, and every now and again in a policy or a throwaway comment they prove it, in the form sometimes of an open confession few will even notice.

1) Low interest rates. The current UK rate of 0.5% helps a third to a quarter as many people who borrow as the great majority who saves. The banks and governments however do borrow at 0.5% while others still pay a few percent to a few thousand depending on the nature and length of the loan. So in this example, there would be no logical reason for any government to hurt the large majority of society, unless it helps them instead.

2) Renewable energy. Wind turbines cost around ten times more per watt than fossil fuel, and even then by their nature can't ever produce the small amounts of power, often in short bursts (like the wind, basically) which ends up wasting half as it's produced when not needed, and staying idle the rest of the time. They need power to start them up, turn them to the wind, heat them when freezing and stop them when too windy. Then a real power station must be on permanently to back them up, again whether or not the power it uses is drawn on. They can't produce on demand so waste their energy as well while they are not being drawn on, wasting energy twice. The maintenance is vastly expensive when they go wrong and use millions of tons of concrete for the foundations. They will never be able to produce more usable power than they cost.

Solar panels only work in sunny areas during the long days, which is stating the obvious unless you've bought them already and clearly forgotten. People buy them for the guaranteed subsidies simply taken from everyone else's bills, and in the winter when they are needed the most can hardly work at all outside the tropics. So you have a system which produces a weak amount of energy (the atmosphere reduces the sunlight by 25 times) and if stored can only be released when there's enough time during the daylight to build enough up. So their production decreases directly with the amount required.

Wood chips are supposed to be a waste product of the building industry, yet besides costing three times more than fossil fuel Britain can't produce their own and import them from the US. As trees are a restricted commodity there will be a point reached where the annual requirement for wood chips can never be met worldwide as the trees can't grow fast enough to be cut down and burnt.

Biofuel clears either existing crops or rain forest, and creates monocultures of corn and palm oil which instead of being used for food (they don't grow more corn, but take a proportion of it) is burnt despite there being hundreds of year's worth of coal at the very least.

Again, the figures are absolutely known in every aspect. Everyone, even the buyers, know for example an electric car can only be fuelled at a point (even if you have to wait many hours when you reach one), but still buy the things and somehow wipe from their minds the inevitable point when they will find themselves, probably on a cold winter night when they need the heater and maybe the wipers on, and forget the usual 50 mile range is down to 30 or 40. Even if they run out a mile from home, they may be able to walk home, but how will they get the car back? Answers on a postcard please. And wait till the battery runs out, a new one costs the value of the car.

3) Unemployment. Throwaway comments can be the destruction of any criminal's career, as when you're a crook your truth is criminality. You lie to appear genuine, and your victims who believe they are your customers pay for the products of your front business, while the money is almost certain to never reach its final destination of a full return plus profits. So for example someone spends £8000 on a solar panel, despite the maths explain on the brochure you will only save £300 a year (based on subsidies and average annual output, which cannot be known in advance), meaning they can't produce a profit for well over 20 years, and how many people will still be there by then? I don't think you can take them with you, plus the wiring and inverter to convert DC to AC. But some solar power drops off after a few years, and some pack up long before the 20 years is up. Then they need cleaning every year, and guess what it costs to get a man up to wipe them clean. Whichever way you arrange the figures the only person making a profit are the sales chain. Now if someone like, say, the managing director of Siemens, said to his staff "We all know solar is a waste of money but the profits are so great we must get involved anyway". This was reported by a number of staff at a meeting when it happened, but for the economic realities of reducing subsidies and maybe customers waking up to the figures gradually then they didn't do it for very long. And the simple observation very few bankers own a credit card. Follow the insiders, they know, and if they don't buy GM food or aspartame in their drinks then neither should you.

Our great new leader, Mark Carney of the Bank of England, for the first time ever gave conditions for the rise in interest rates he wasn't planning to do. Unemployment must fall to below 7% from 7.8%, subject to various other conditions. The Daily Mail reported how investors are dreading this week's unemployment figures, as if they are too low then it could mean an earlier rise in interest rates.

These are the bankers who gain from low interest rates, like property companies gain from high property prices while the owners never can, and are both a tiny minority of society. The government and the bankers work in tandem, sharing the low interest rates and passing bonds and futures between them to enrich whoever wins the bets, while it's our money they're gambling with as they stole it from investors in deposits and pensions. So we already know the government are not looking after us with low interest rates, but the people they are looking after, the bankers, want the country to have high unemployment as they make more profits from it. You can't please all the people all the time, but surely you should look after the majority wherever possible, and never try and profit from their misfortunes. As Mark Carney has now guaranteed will happen.

It is one thing to spend years of detective work tracing money and tracking down perpetrators to spend weeks or months presenting evidence in court before possibly winning a guilty verdict, and having policies which openly admit 'We are ripping you off' in ten foot tall flashing letters. How much more evidence does anyone need, that you can not only prove our government is looking after a small group of already successful people, but probably the great majority of all its other policies are doing the same thing in less obvious ways? We can elect new people, and the rise of UKIP is proving this with their growing support ahead of the next elections, but until the majority actually discover how the current three parties (as they don't disagree on any of these policies) are all out to get us, or at least not out to help us, things can never change. Unless you want them to.

Wednesday, 7 August 2013

Hiding in plain sight

It's all 100% engineered:

Low interest rates remove around 60-70% of wealth overall as savers outnumber borrowers, they then push up house prices which mean people spend more of their incomes on them, and debase the currency (treason) as investment moves elsewhere with greater returns. QE guarantees this situation and in itself could be the basis of an accusation of debasing the currency against statute law.
Pyramid schemes involving renewable energy have knowingly removed billions from the world economy to the hands of the mafia, as wind and solar cost more to produce than they can ever return in the random weak levels of power they produce. Everyone can learn the measurements of costs and output and they do not make a usable profit, remove the subsidies (theft) and they would never have been manufactured. Those are the symptoms of a sick and corrupt world government system who could never have managed it unless they all work together as a team (mafia).

Fixing economic rates centrally in the Eurozone guarantees the decline of the poorer members in order to maintain order in the system and force ever closer union as their failure requires greater and greater political as well as economic merger with consequent loss of individual governance.
This is quite probably the most corrupt period in world history, and ironically (because of the internet) one of the easiest to see yet organised schemes such as the long term fixing of the
Libor rate, and hiding doctored evidence in Hillsborough for 23 years without a single criminal charge proves we have been living in a growing diseased world for decades. Every single cause of the credit crash has remained in place, the banks have seen few if any new regulations and not a single criminal prosecution outside Iceland. Structured financial instruments alone were able to act as time bombs, hiding toxic debts inside AAA rated packages, which, like beef sausages, only needed a few percent of beef to qualify. Banks were not concerned over losing money over unrepayable debts, as they earned up front fees and then sold them on to unsuspecting investors whilst hiding in packages so complex even the sellers and banking authorities could not decipher them.

This is all now totally visible and incontrovertible, and above that the fact virtually all of it is continuing exactly as before, with credit cards still being offered to people unable to service them, and limits rising once taken on despite no funds to ever repay them, proves it is a deliberate and organised system connecting the entire western world, no different to any of the banana republics who have been doing the same in their own countries for decades beforehand and simply left to it as they weren't affecting many people elsewhere. Nowadays the only difference between them is how well the west can hide it in plain sight, the evidence being presented many times over now to prove exactly what they have done and continue to do unhindered by the keys of knowledge available for all.

Everyone could see this and blow it away within days, but faith in governments and our superiors maintains the system through nothing but the illusion created by authority. Every piece required to prove three times over these crooks are running the world and how is already out there but they see it as a personal attack on those carrying out the atrocities who they have grown to love above their own families.

Getting the con in one paragraph.

There are three levels of knowledge in life. A perfect example exists to illustrate this. Very few bankers own a credit card but sell them and make their living from other people using them and often getting into serious debt and ruining their and their family's lives. And the third level are the people who can see exactly what's happening, would never use a credit card, but can't apparently do a fucking thing to stop it.

For 'credit cards' you can also replace with 'solar panels', 'wind turbines' and 'electric cars' for the 21st century variations of SELLING YOU DOWN THE RIVER.

Think about it and share if you get it.

Monday, 22 July 2013

James Hansen's deviation from science and subsequent protection from exposure

I wish a journalist qualified in physics would take this up, but as six years on it's only been torn apart a couple of times online I thought I'd have a go while waiting the million years or so for someone better qualified than me to expose it in an actual newspaper.

Now this little graph ought to destroy James Hansen's reputation and entire career, but while it remains on the system like a little canine present under the chair, it is like a ticking grenade just waiting to explode. The reason I would prefer someone qualified to come to my aid is I am only able to draw on the rough memory of Newton's laws from school to explain this breach of everything science represents, but can guarantee that is sufficient to show what he has done, and far more importantly (as any individual, however highly qualified, is free to publish nonsense) the fact not one of his peers (who would all quote the exact rule and reason for its falsehood in moments) has done so.

In order for this graph to work, it appears to require the diversion from various givens in physics, notably uniform evaporation and melting. If you watch a puddle after the rain the sun evaporates it steadily. If you watch the snow and ice after the sun comes out it melts steadily, admittedly with a few twists and turns such as the initial delay when overcoming the latent heat required to begin the melting process (or whatever, I only have O level sciences) but then melts steadily, and there is no force I am aware of which can change this.

Hansen has presented a further reason, how the pause in warming can be explained by yet another newly created law of physics, the deep ocean storage theory, which unlike the sudden melting has been accepted by the majority of his peers (even though, like me, they haven't a clue how it works, mainly as it doesn't), which could then be extended to say that when the (unmeasurable) depths release the heat it could be sudden, which would cover his graph perfectly.

This is where I am left behind, as although this clearly breaks every one of Newton's laws somehow, I can't apply them, so if anyone qualified to do it can intervene then this piece can be completed properly. But it's still nonsense even if I can't explain exactly how.

Thursday, 4 April 2013

Long term predictions are not science, so must be lies

In science and life in general it's always best to work with the present and what history you already know. Outside a linear system nothing else can be determined at a level beyond slightly above random (ie 0 on a level of -1 to 1), whether in science, economics or politics. There are at best clues how the dominant areas of any complex system can react to new inputs (eg added CO2 or new taxes) but only give the roughest estimate at a general direction, but not the actual level of that change in that direction. In reailty every scientist knows this already as we even got that in week one sociology as part of the underlying scientific method we would base our work on ever after.

Such predictions are best avoided altogether, as besides being inherently worthless (as the error margin is not wider than the level of uncertainty, meaning the results cannot be seen ahead at a greater level than random), and where made at all are only a form of speculation in regard for things like long term insurance and financial policies, as the best available information. As for general economic or scientific policy they give little or no additional benefit, simply as the complexities of the world economy and society at any point in time mean changes can be so rapid that any attempt to fix the parameters will only be minimal and become obsolete within weeks or months.

Politicians do not care about science or ethics, their primary consideration is election, so whatever they believe will keep them in power is their first motivation. The second is what personal gains can they get from the policies, from lobbyists (ie bribery), investments (inside trading) or appointment of family or friends (nepotism). Those are the main reasons people rise to the top level in politics, anyone below that may indeed be ethical, but as always the minority are never enough or can be to make good policies for the benefit of the people.

Making any long term predictions outside the widest and least controversial areas are therefore knowingly dishonest, and anyone hearing them should immediately label the speaker as such, as every single medium to long term prediction in science, politics and economics (eg the fall of capitalism or coming ice age) has been bogus, as proved by the actual results decades or more later.

Saturday, 30 March 2013

Our three weapons are...

Whatever came first or followed is not important, but the easiest model by far to understand world government cooperation, from the UN to local councils and everywhere in between, is the structure of the mafia. The three weapons, already discussed, are sticks, carrots and silence. The sticks and carrots, threats and bribes are fairly self evident, but the silence on the surface may be, but goes so deep to the roots of the human soul itself, it needs its own analysis.

Nearly all criminal structures involving a group have a pyramid structure, of a few dirty sods running the show, some thick arses second in command taking orders, like the concentration camp guards, and the thick bottom of unwilling but passive followers. The most important element they provide is maintaining silence. Bernie Madoff and Enron had offices full of staff, many who joined thinking they were genuine outfits (Enron was until they got into trouble and tried to 'fix it'), discovered the truth sooner or later, and (as demonstrated by the many years of successful trading before accidentally being found out for both companies) at the very most may have dropped the odd hint to the authorities anonymously which were never enough to find anything incriminating.

There are many elements of illusion and diversion, as all magicians know and exploit for entertainment only, and a branch of the same elements of mental weakness as silence are false threats. The EU is a wonderful example of making up impossible to qualify statements which enough people accept as they are offered with authority. The standard list of consequences the insiders roll out in opposition to any challenges a country would be better off out are so vague and empty any child studying economics or history could see through them in moments if it was part of their current work, but they successfully convince any waverers throughout the community, including the many whose countries lose billions a year as a direct result of membership, so every single claim is void as besides the equally empty absence of a European war (as we go to war with countries outside Europe instead who are even worse than the current generation of Germans, most of the time anyway) the figures speak for themselves. So ignorance is a feature of the power used to exploit the public, as even when a claim is as easy to refute as taking your socks off and counting your toes, the general public can't be arsed to take a single extra step to question authority so blindly accept it if it needs one or more.

Similar threats drive the silence, as whisteblowers throughout history have generally tended to end up with their severed heads on poles or at the bed of a river than the tiny remainder as heroes such as Silkwood, although many still go through hell and severe persecution, before the few left finally win their cases and get media exposure. People go to work to support themselves and usually their families, so there is a lot at stake for almost certainly losing your job before anything more sinister is considered. But that culture of silence, that which allowed the IRA to operate for decades as they'd shoot the kneecaps of any informers, and the mafia who will not just kill the informer but their families as well, is only watered down in lower levels of violence but equal in criminality. It is impossible for a fraud to be discovered a decade or more afterwards (23 years in the case of the Hillsborough police rewriting witness statements)  without a collective acceptance of protecting the wrongdoers rather than risk any retribution. The methods to enforce the silence vary from those already mentioned, threatening witnesses, saying nothing but being such an absolute bastard it's not worth the risk of crossing them, and basically anything which tips the balance between doing the right thing and avoiding trouble. The empty threat method however actually applies to the vast majority of organisations in reality, as the only difference between the others and the real mafia is very few would dream of using violence or even the standard political fare of smear campaigns. But when ordinary law abiding people discover they are working for crooks they don't see shades of grey but instantly think of The Godfather and besides the valiant few, many of whom are actually dismissed by the authorities so arguably they are either involved or immune as well, assume their lives are at risk, or their incomes at least, so join the dark side. Passive acceptance of crimes is no different in effect to carrying out the actual hits, especially when you consider the mafia themselves tend to delegate the actual murders to others, but in a conspiracy everyone is judged equally.

But as always in these lessons, knowing the methods are sufficient to avoid them entirely. Unless you find you are working for the mafia or IRA then there'll never be a single reason to shut the hell up, as that job you're doing which turns out to be based on stealing lead from old people's rooves and stealing their jewellery when you ask to use their phone or toilet, isn't going to last that long anyway as crooks running any kind of business tend to stop when they reach the target and pack up before their luck runs out. In fact only by the lower staff keeping quiet when a single tipoff could close the place down, protect many victims and probably get a reward, people only think of the negatives which in fact only tend to happen in Italy or the rougher cities of America. Otherwise in the west at least the police tend to be only involved in a small minority running protection rackets and payoffs for drug gangs to operate their patch, and almost always at the lower levels, so absolutely no excuse not to do so. Temptation is another non-religious situation described in the bible, and these temptations of originally decent people will dirty their souls until they repent and come back to the good side.

Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Renewable subsidies go to oil companies

One of the major causes of fraud is people not looking beyond the surface. The poor sheep who keep bleating every part of climate scepticism is 'funded by big oil' have never done a single piece of research, and are just repeating what more intelligent crooks have said to them. In fact big oil is 'big energy' and they promote climate research and propaganda as it gives them massive guaranteed profits for no actual energy production. Who needs oil when you can get the money directly from the taxpayers?

We are now all criminals.

If I said to you the government could make you and I criminals as proxies for what large corporations did in the past you'd say I was a fucking lunatic.

RBS fixed Libor for ages, when finally discovered they were only given a civil demand for compensation in the UK (I think a fine can only be for a crime), and as 81% nationalised guess who's paid it? Yes, we the taxpayers. You couldn't make it up better than this.
If you extend this to the next level if any of the staff were to be found guilty of crimes they could convict random citizens instead as we are now legally responsible for their PAST actions, as this has set a precedent. Don't rely on me, check out the law of precedent.

The mafia couldn't have done it any better, pay a corrupt company for ripping off its customers, and when they then get busted for cheating (but avoid criminal charges as the system was already fixed) and fined then because they've been temporarily nationalised guess who pays the fine? The taxpayer.

Now this is a precedent. If the public can be made to pay someone else's fine from something which happened before they were responsible for it, they have changed the legal principles in a number of fundamental ways. Firstly till now it was impossible to be responsible for something which has been backdated. If you change the law to create a responsibility today for any act in civil or criminal law (such as paying for bank fraud) it can only apply to acts committed after the date of that decision. Here the people are paying for something which was carried out for over a decade before it was even discovered, and by sheer chance (ie in normal circumstances the entire issue would have remained 'in house') because the public now own most of RBS, they have become entirely responsible for their actions, past and present. Not content with changing the meaning of marriage (not fraud but tyranny) David Cameron's reign has now rewritten the law to allow (like Jesus in fact) the public to take on the responsibility for others' civil (and potentially criminal, as in every other field the Libor fixing would be obtaining financial benefit by deception under the Theft Act) wrongs, potentially opening the door (with no rewriting of a single statute as using common law principles) to any other example in the future. In theory, should this not be seen as a single act of phenomenal theft (the British public are paying the lion's share of someone else's £392 million fine), which in itself is an incredible act of robbery, but without a successful legal challenge (I see none, not even an attempted challenge) will in future be able to nationalise any company they like and make us pay for any act they have previously committed forever.

Of course in the case of RBS it could be argued that when the government kindly paid their executives not to lose their jobs and bonuses (they did not reduce when taken over) in exchange for limited temporary management privileges, they also took on their debts. Of course taking on the debts of a massive private company as a government is sheer lunacy already, but when these then include legal obligations through fraud, the general public have literally become responsible for someone else's criminal acts. I say acts, not crimes, as rigging interest rates has become decriminalised, where altering the market to remove money from investors only becomes a civil wrong when carried out by banks. Yes, that was exactly what happened, as with carbon trading, which before Bill Clinton and Al Gore's activities were imitated worldwide, were actually both criminal and applied to companies at all levels, as the Enron board went down for a long time for doing it. But here for reasons only known by the government and associated lawyers, who declared to the press the day Libor fixing went public, 'This is not actually a crime'. I haven't seen the legislation but must exist otherwise the claim couldn't have lasted more than a day or two before some lawyer spotted it.

Meanwhile George Osborne says that the taxpayer will not pay any of the fine owed by the 81% public owned bank, presumably taking it out of the remainder and making sure the accounts do not cross over. Apparently.

However, on the legal side, RBS (for doing exactly the same thing) have been convicted of a crime in Japan, and had a suspended sentence in the US, withholding actual prosecution if they don't do anything like it in future. That's OK then.

Friday, 1 February 2013

Climate PR methods exposed

Thanks to gatekeeper2 for this which I have pasted over:

Here’s a few examples (from memory, the BEST report does not comment on the presentation in any depth but does mention possible exaggeration of the human element.
A few of the deceptive politicised rules of the climate cabal in exaggerating warming and hiding the decline, apart from the obvious attempts to discredit the opposition scientists:
1)    Use the words, “The Planet has been Warming.” Avoid mentioning the fact that this warming is barely detectable at about 0.07 deg C per decade averaged over the entire 20th century but only 0.05 per decade for the immediately past decade.
2)    Avoid scales which show too much detail and use convenient markers (vertical green bars) starting on a low and ending on a high.
3)    State Sea levels are rising but avoid that on average this is around just 1 inch per decade and has been for some time (a little less recently)
4)    Avoid close-ups of the post 1995 period. If forced to show something on this, avoid all averaging lines or markers that would highlight the flat lining or the marginal downward line since 2002.
5)    Concentrate on absolutes, such as the first decade of the 21st century is the warmest in the past 100 years but ignore step trend change that places it on a plateaux during this period with marginal cooling.
6)    Never show the erratic global temperature profile on the same chart as the steady tight sinusoidal increase CO2 profile such as is shown by sceptics on the Friends of Science website.
7)    Cherry pick timeframes that can adopt the years of strong warming occurring between 1970 and 2000 to project back to years before and on into the 21st century to exacerbate apparent warming in what were in fact cooling and flat-lining years.
8)    Terminology: change the language so that the term global warming or climate change are automatically attributed falsely with the invisible ‘catastrophic’ and ‘man-made’ labels.
9)    Instead of sceptics, use the word deniers to falsely and evilly imply holocaust deniers.

Wednesday, 23 January 2013

Fraud for one, fraud for all

Lance Armstrong's belated confession stands as a perfect example not of a confession, but how long he managed to continue (about 15 years) without failing a SINGLE drug test, not by being clean but by cheating the tests as well as the races.

This type of performance can ONLY happen where an entire group is corrupt, from the TOP downwards, as 'rogue individuals' nearly always get busted, prosecuted and held up as an example outside their company or profession. But in cycling and banking (I have enough evidence on both of those at the very least) the rogue individuals are the honest ones. There is not a single reason to cheat or join the crooks as a new and innocent arrival, but they nearly all did, and if a single person genuinely thinks one profession has 'more crooks' than others that is exactly why they get away with it so long, as YOU believe say, scientists are generally far more trustworthy than politicians or estate agents.

How the bloody hell do you know that? Does someone studying science need to have an ethics test before they are accepted as well as good A levels? Are somehow technically minded people more pure of heart than those in business? NO!!! People are people first, and the law of averages sorts the good, bad and indifferent virtually exactly evenly EVERYWHERE, whatever the destination they are virtually the same mix.

Therefore if one particular area becomes poisoned, then whether they are the small group of leaders or large group of silent followers who know exactly what happens and keeps them protected by keeping quiet, they have gone bad. Libor, Hillsbrough, Enron, Bernie Madoff, all appeared above suspicion, so the longer they stayed in business the more money or avoidance of prosecution could continue. Lance Armstrong was not a rogue individual, he was just the most successful cheat in history in a profession of other cheats. Now we know this please accept this can and does happen in every possible profession, the signs are the same for all, I spent many years learning them and if everyone else does they will get stopped before they have cleared up and screwed us all in the process. Knowledge is the only requirement to undo every single one.

Wednesday, 16 January 2013

Basic temperature rise for doublings of CO2

Temp  rise from 1850 C'

With no positive feedback, double CO2 and add a degree C. In 2013 CO2 has increased 50% since 1850, temperature has risen around 0.7C on a rising trend, and even if all down to CO2 double that and you get a barely noticeable 1.5C at 520ppm. But if you can squeeze 1.5C at 520ppm, you would need 1040ppm for 2C plus any feedback, and 2080 for 3C etc. There isn't even enough fossil fuel available to burn that much to raise temperatures past anywhere near the IPCC 'danger level', the experiment for the feedback is already half run and by their own figures, they attribute only 0.4C to the added CO2, meaning this graph is actually reading higher than reality so far. How many activists or the general public realise even if CO2 reaches 520ppm, once there it would be almost impossible to gain much more heat as the return would reduce so much the emissions would not be able to keep up. The IPCC don't mention that but it is first year stuff for the scientists.

Friday, 11 January 2013

Mass hysteria, you ain't seen nothing yet

Throughout history the medically recognised phenomenon of mass hysteria has broken out in larger and smaller examples, the greatest known probably being the Salem witch trials. The common elements are a group possession of a psychotic delusion, which all within believe to be genuine while all unaffected can see the same way as with an individual's psychotic ramblings. Religion may be argued as another example as if you remove the source as Jesus or Moses many of the claims would also be considered equal nonsense, but for this piece religion is used solely to demonstrate the psychological mechanisms involved.

Up till the 1990s, there was no known non-religious example which was not either local or small scale and short lived. But with the effort of Al Gore who with James Hansen made a speech to Congress to the tune that by 2100 we'd all die of heatstroke unless we stopped burning fossil fuels, even though at the time the temperature had only risen around half a degree in over a century, they managed to convince the majority of the world this was true, despite it breaking every single rule of logic and evidence, namely:

Temperature rise. Whether or not the temperatures were accurate or complete, even their worst case scenario of 0.7C in 150 years around the turn of the century was normally something insignificant. But because CO2 had risen in the same period by 50% you had an unknown entered into the atmosphere, one which those capable could claim more or less whatever they wanted as long as they had the required status. Then they shifted from the meagre temperature rises, as although CO2 appeared to have shot up (although only measured at one point on the planet) the actual present effects were very close to the 1C expected by doubling. My original thought was 'doubling from what point?', but it's not a linear doubling but a logarithmic one, ie each doubling is half as powerful as the last, fast becoming infinitesimal in response to impossible potential octupling or so. So we have a lab/paper figure of doubling adding 1C, borne out perfectly by the 0.7 rise less natural causes at 50%.

However, breaking the rules of reality and crossing over into end times and Revelations, they switched from logic and science to Nostradamus and astrology. If CO2 rises to 560ppm by 2100 the temperature could rise up to 6C (but most likely 2-3C). This was despite the foreseen water vapour being evaporated to cause more humidity and amplify the warming, which as no built in delay went into the equation, has not happened half way through the experiment. So take away today's lack of news, and direct people's attention to a puzzle with no solution, as back in the 90s only a few people born around that time would be alive to see it in 2100. 2050, the new 2100, is little different as none of the existing scientists will be under 80 when it comes along, and if they really think it's reasonable to wait till most observers are dead to even get a clue of the end result they should be retired and left to grass.

Sea level rise: Global warming (you know, that cause which was the driver of the effect of climate change) requires (according to the UN) a rise of 2C before any negative overall results kick in, till then the overall obvious results (just like the results of an ice age are obvious, even those living near the equator can probably find a chest freezer somewhere they can stand by for a bit to get the feel) of greater food production and fewer overall deaths from cold are possibly overturned by whatever (unknown) disadvantages could be. I say unknown as history isn't quite sure about temperatures before 1850 as no one measured them enough to know till then. But we do know it was warmer in Roman times and biblical as it's agreed in general, and there were no reports of climate wars or mass extinctions they'd like us to. So the sea level rise is only an effect of a vastly rising temperature, as sea records are far easier to look back on as the shells on dry land show it was once covered by sea, and they can all be carbon dated. Half sea level rise is from thermal expansion, and half is from melting polar land ice. Last century the sea rose 7 inches (which even the Pacific islanders were directly unaware of unless they looked it up) with a temperature rise of around half a degree, and in 2013 the little percentage of the new century we've passed is consistent with that, especially considering the the temperature settled down just before 2000 so how could the sea rise faster? Therefore James Hansen's claims of a metre, or metres by 2100 is impossible. Not impossible just to know either way, but would require a known volume of sea to expand and ice to melt, which (someone can help me as it's not my bag) requires from my basic enquiries around 6C. Given the known drivers and progress of the existing CO2/temperature line, sea level has to follow as entirely linked and dependent on temperature to rise.

So, given the two extremely simple criteria, temperature and sea level past, present and future, and timescales presented for the future and equations for CO2/temperature relationships compared with results, what would a child think? Of course a child who wasn't taught Al Gore's national curriculum, but one independent of any prior persuasion.If I had the time and resources I'd draw up a paper test and get a few hundred children to take it, but gentlemen of the jury, given the situation, you easily have the means to put yourself in such a position and make a perfectly adequate estimation.

Believing an experiment half run (50% CO2 rise) could still suddenly turn the other way, creating a rise at least if not above the highest estimated possible temperature of the UN, which given just the most basics of science could see the drivers of such a rise would be physically impossible unless naturally coming out of an ice age, is a symptom of temporary mental inadequacy. Mass persuasion, hysteria, brainwashing, exploitation and selective reporting has created what is the greatest level of mass delusion ever. Unfortunately within the literature there is no clue as to how to dismantle the problem, as each went away on its own. Sufferers are the mental patients or drunks at the party while the immune recessive minority are the visitors or sober ones. If anyone's attempted to use their logic and awareness of reality to a schizophrenic patient they will know the two cannot meet, and this is what we're up against here until something happens to either break it suddenly (only such major new data or one of the authority figures changing the message) or gradually, which will then take decades of flat or falling temperatures to leave all but the irrelevant minority behind. Of course every day it continues we are all losing money and freedom, Paris and London have banned certain older vehicles already from entering, and this is just the start of such measures including David Miliband's wish for a personal energy ration, only put on hold as he lost the last election. Not to mention the 3,000 people dying every winter in Britain from hypothermia since energy prices were raised too high for them to afford.

Unfortunately whichever way you play it out this mass hysteria is gradually becoming mass murder, while vast amounts of food crops are being burnt as biofuel, reducing the availability in the third world and raising the price in the developed world. Waiting 30 years for the facts to overtake the lunacy will hurt far too many people and by then the damage will all be done.

10 examples of mass hysteria

Wednesday, 9 January 2013

2013's climate crackers

It's January the 10th, and we've had:

The Hebrew University summary of climate data showing no significant warming or human influence

The Met Office revising their decadal guess prediction horoscope projection to complete two decades with no warming worldwide.

NASA releasing the results of a massive study showing solar changes do in fact have a far greater effect on climate than thought.

One (the Met Office) has been reported widely, although released on 24th of December, a vigorous campaign by the GWPF (Nigel Lawson's outfit) meant an eventual release yesterday worldwide. The university study, by far the most important, was missed entirely, despite including and contradicting the fully reported BEST report earlier in the year by Berkeley University. NASA only reported today and to be fair is so obscure to the average person is almost guaranteed to be kept to the internet. But we have three continents almost simultaneously confirming what informed skeptics with and without scientific qualifications have been saying for years. Will the rest of the world now start to catch up?

More climate quotes

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed…Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring,

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity.… My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”— NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein, is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004 by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

Monday, 7 January 2013

Elements of historic extremism in 21st century politics

Comparison with modern political agendas with historic totalitarianism: (work in progress)

'Public Relations' Goebbels is the modern father of propaganda-which has currently become political correctness- make discussion of sacred cows impossible and insult or criminalise any opposition eg gay marriage 'homophobic' global warming 'murderer' immigration 'racist'. Closing down opposition by personal slander is the lowest means of propagandism, and used to treat opinions (such as gay marriage and immigration) or two sided issues (global warming) as if they were facts. Change the meanings of words and create new ones, such as 'pollution' (CO2 is essential for life and not toxic up to around 5% [from a current 0.4%]) 'carbon footprint', 'renewables', 'clean energy' etc. In fact the UN have a paper recommending replacing the term 'climate change' (a meaningless phrase cut from the entire 'climate change from global warming') to the equally meaningless 'sustainability' as people are beginning to notice it is incorrect.

World government and policies: While sold as the best way to govern in an international age, in fact the agenda is no different from any other empire building, it just raises the world as the highest prize. The EU and UN have taken up this mission following the loss by Germany/Axis powers in the last two world wars, to regain a unified control of Europe, and in the case of the UN, the entire world. Being fully open with such policies (as they either believe they are right, or else the people will) plans for a world government, requiring a tax based on energy usage and carbon currency, which both require a world tier to be operable, are being proposed.

Scapegoating: As we all need warmth to live and to travel, everyone requires a minimum amount of heating, electricity and fuel. By demonising the sources of nearly all such power, and as a consequence the users, we have the ultimate scapegoat, humanity. 'Charities' such as WWF and Greenpeace have extremist wings who compare humans with vermin, maggots and cancer. David Suzuki and Margaret Mead were the modern voices for the movement, with many more coming on board from an original meeting in the 70s onwards, along with the Club of the Isles, including Prince Philip who wants to be reincarnated as a deadly virus. This was not ironic or a joke.

Travel restrictions: What was the first thing the Soviet government did to its people? It created travel permits and made it almost impossible to leave the country, let alone emigrate. The EU have plans to ban cars in all major cities, with London banning old commercial vehicles and Paris all older vehicles in 2012, under ultimately UN Agenda 21 directives (not binding) via ICLEI who administer Agenda 21 locally. Artificially raising fuel and public transport prices further make it harder to work far from home and the London Congestion Charge which divides families as some cannot afford to leave their children with relatives in the school holidays.

Historic policies: At present there is no single version of older types of extreme and totalitarian policies, most theories but some carried out completely or partially, but a mixture and rebirth of elements of old and new movements, the details are not important as generally dead, but as a whole need to be known in order to recognise in current forms and versions, which have been heavily disguised in PR newspeak you need a translator to uncover their true meanings. I have already covered the travel restrictions and deliberate neologisms to repeat until people forget they were ever not part of the language, despite having little or no meaning. A general belief in collectivism, and that individuals are not responsible enough to govern themselves is inherent at both ends of the political spectrum, along with individual wealth which is believed by many to be an obscenity and goes against equality. Redistribution of wealth, and enforced restrictions on it are the feature of all on the left, the only difference being how much. Some disagree with inheritance, returning all assets to the state on death, regardless of the fact that would also require a restriction on gifts during the childrens' lifetimes (or technically gifts over a certain size to anyone) otherwise the law could not be enforceable.

The general claims by all extremists is people need a firm hand and must work together or certain policies such as farming or climate must be coordinated at extra-national levels or cannot work. This of course has no basis in reality as countries such as Iceland, Switzerland and Norway have absolutely no trouble carrying out their governments and cooperating with others while the EU would rather force countries such as Greece to raise the value of their currencies to keep the collective going via the Euro currency.

Scapegoating comes in all shapes and forms, to Jews and Non-Aryans, to polluters, the rich, the aristocracy or anyone else to divert attention from the bloody mess the government has made as in fact they always have ultimate control of individuals and organisations so blaming others is a smokescreen. The banks, however, have become the false messiahs of the 21st century, as whatever they do in Britain they cannot lose, while in Iceland they did default, face prosecution, and as a result although their foreign debts were welched on the country is out of recession unlike the EU. Protecting friends and relatives is the opposite side of scapegoating, so if the far left say a terrorist organisation like Hamas is good, and ban Israeli goods (despite many employees being Arabs) they are protecting and promoting murderers. Hamas have always fired on the innocent while Israel has never fired a single shot first against them. But the PLO and all onwards teach the children Jews and Christians are pigs and dogs and must be wiped out from what they call 'Palestine' as they refuse to accept the (UN created) state of Israel. This is just the best current example of turning a terrorist criminal organisation into heroes as they support the greater agenda.

I have already listed many quotes already so will allow the reader to check them directly, and search for the endless supply on the internets from greats as Stalin, Lenin, Mao and similar, but will say they are divided in two, direct statements of genuine policy, and doublespeak where good is bad and up is down, and just need translating by those who know.

Grand designs: From the ongoing Soviet five and ten year plans which never seemed to be completed, to the dream of a united Europe, many political organisations have such stereotyped desires to take over a continent, and now the world, including the Muslim Global Caliphate, who work in Muslim and non-Muslim countries attempting the dual purpose of returning every country with a Muslim population since day one (including Spain), and wiping out Israel. Whether or not any or all of such desires had been carried out, they are all there to be seen and represent both the genuine beliefs and aims of some of the richest and most powerful people in history and the present, including the quote from David Rockefeller's autobiography. Many are willing to kill to complete their missions, human life is always secondary to the mission at the worst level of extremism, and seen since Genesis onwards. Denying such deaths, including the Turkish massacre of Armenians and the holocaust itself, both within living memory, are part of the PR, and rewriting history is another classical policy of totalitarian governments. The current argument of Mary Seacole being forced into the national curriculum as a nursing heroine, despite being unqualified and running business in war zones against Florence Nightingale is a recent British example designed to promote the false philosophies of multiculturalism and universalism, claiming all cultures are equal and those who hurt or kill their own people (even when in this country) are somehow excused from any responsibility as it is 'their culture'. The fact suttee and thugee, killing and robbing with violence, were successfully eliminated from India by the British Empire, killing female children there and in China, and female genital mutilation are generally avoided by all western authorities, either pretending it doesn't even happen, or allowing it as part of an alternative culture.

In the end all such people use moral relativism, claiming no action they deem qualifies is any worse than any other. What follows is legislation to restrict freedom of speech, coined to deceive by using terms like 'Preventing racism' or 'Equality', while simply making certain words or phrases illegal.

Conclusions: The aims of the mad and the bad, who have enough power and/or money to carry out at least some of their wishes, have barely changed since the bible, as people have never changed. As long as enough people with such power abuse it by bending the rules to favour themselves and their friends, whether or not it is sheer brainwashing and a genuine belief in the cause or simply purely corrupt, the results are the same. In fact, all top politicians and philosophers have concluded it is a waste of energy to try and analyse the motivations of the enemy as much as trying to follow the ramblings of a schizophrenic. If they are against us then all we can do is recognise it and organise our own forces to stop them taking over. Extremists rely on a combination of brainwashing, raising the awareness of the majority to believe their claims, or subterfuge, by pretending they are helping you when cutting your throats. Simply recognising both is the best vaccine, and should a single country be educated well enough to see the elements they can never take hold.