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


  1. Quite an interersting blog you have here David!!

    1. Thanks OE, it also seems it's not sending me emails when someone comments so I only just found this. I'm now collecting it all in one place and compiling a book, if people read it they won't be subject to the illusion any longer and eventually when enough do it will go away.

  2. Have a gander at the reactions on HuffPo when anybody says that a reasonable approach to reducing shootings would be to remove "no gun" signs and allow lawful CCW holders to defend themselves and their neighbors -- if that isn't mass hysteria, what would qualify? People are making all kinds of attacks, no substantive discussion of the reality is permitted.

    1. It's all part of the same thing, one opinion is right and one is wrong, and attempts are then made to make the 'wrong' ones illegal. It can't last for ever though.