They lied to you about climate change

Update of an earlier entry:

Imagine your lords and masters, who you trusted and believed looked after you, admitted they were lying, cheating and generally openly ripping you off. How would you feel, and how would you react?

In fact, I have collected records of this happening for over 40 years, it is on the record officially and totally ignored by the media. Open confessions, the criminal pleading guilty and handing themself over to the authorities, saves millions in court fees and lawyers, and keeping a jury busy for weeks or months. Official enquiries into government wrongdoings take years, and if those involved simply fessed up and their racket was closed down it would save billions or more.

Well they have. Over and over again. But people didn't notice. Just show them this and they will.

The roots of today's phoney environmental movement (as opposed to the genuine one, which is starved of funds as a direct result) actually mainly lie in the German Volkisch movement of the 19th century, which grew into Nazism and the Eugenics movement, reducing the numbers of mankind based on racial purity. You can learn about this by searching, and suffice to say Unesco, the relevant unit of the UN was set up by the communist eugenicist Julian Huxley in 1946, who went on to found the environmentally extreme WWF in 1963 under the original guise of saving wild animals, much like the Mafia front businesses who run their drugs and prostitution behind restaurants and dry cleaners. Yes, they provide a genuine service, but only to hide their real business activities.

But despite the lack of media coverage from the 1970s onwards, every so often, mainly as they are proud of their views and like the Nazis before them believe they are right so have no reason to hide their true intentions, they simply come straight out with it. This bunch of eugenicists, bottom feeders, rent seekers and general no goodniks including ex politicians and top businessmen, many of whom can be read from the list of Bilderberg members, the only element of their meetings besides the location which is not secret, believe they have so much power they can admit whatever they like and nothing will stop them carrying on.

This of course is wrong. Illusions work by consent and confusion. Take both away and they vanish. In this case the illusion is broken already, as these creeps have spoken openly, clearly and directly about their actions, and if even 10% of the people were to hear it the consent would be withdrawn. Who would pay huge green taxes once they were told the entire basis of global warming was a means to create one world government? The Hegelian dialectic, create a problem where the solution is your diabolical policy, is one which has worked since the beginning of governments. Church indulgences, sacrificing virgins, you name it, they make you believe suffering today to save a possible disaster in the future is a winning formula of dishonesty. It's entirely down to the idiots who accept it, believing you can both predict the climate a hundred or more years ahead, and do something to change it. And all the other crap that goes with it, such as ignoring thousands of years of history of what science called 'climate optimum' (the warm bits) and believing a slight increase in temperature will be a bad thing, unlike an ice age which kills millions of people every time.

But rather than join the battle with the errors of science, ie the trial, which will never take place as by the time the temperature has started to fall our money and rights will all be down the toilet, just take the guilty pleas and chuck the lot of them in prison, which may even be too good for them. Disagree? Ask the African farmers who were turfed off their land to burn their crops for biofuel. They wouldn't.

We begin with Margaret Mead's statement of future plans from 1974's Endangered Atmosphere conference.

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

Besides the majority of ordinary people who accept such statements on face value, I have seen activists who (like the relatives of organised criminals) have tried to undo the meaning of this. As a result, I'll pick it apart to defuse any attempts to claim it does not mean exactly what it says, although of course subsequent statements by others are impossible to interpret in any other ways. His main plank was 'artificial' meant man made. Yes, really. Although while he meant the problems were man made (which they aren't, but we are accused of), the statements and claims were, which they are, including the incredible adjustments taking flat and random temperature trends and making them tilt in the recent period to all look the same. Having learnt some statistics adjustments are of two types, random error corrections, which tend to zero as they cancel out false positives and negatives, and bias, which cancels out readings too high or low. In fact temperature errors are a combination of both, but all bias is the other way, from urban heat islands, so no results should be higher than the raw figures. Yet nearly all of them are They twisted the graphs here

Before I go on, I will also point out the 'solution' to global warming, involving money as per, is carbon trading. I recognised this and traced it back to its roots, which became very familiar as developed by the fraudulent company Enron, before they were caught. So even the 'solutions' (ie give us your money) are as bent as a bunch of bananas, as until they became legal and mandatory, they were an instrument of criminal fraud. They are still fraudulent, why, because a court said so, but they have been legalised. So we are being ripped off whether or not the governments are actually guilty of a crime as well.

 The UN are in charge of world global warming policy, mainly set by the 1992 Kyoto Protocol. Yet a few times their own spokesmen have stated it is not really genuine. From the gradually more familiar quote from their economist Ottmar Edenhoffer in 2010:


"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

which was not a rogue statement but affirmed in 2015 by Christina Figueres, who again repeated global warming was simply the tool they used to destroy capitalism. It's that simple.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution"

Not a word about polar bears, ice caps or sea levels. No, it's about business and money extraction.

She said it

Such a philosophy has even been published in a free book available online by the Club of Rome in 1991, 'The First Global Revolution'

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

They are not a bunch of unknown nutcases, but similar in personnel to the Bilderbergers and include the Dalai Lama, who lectures on the dangers of climate change, as now does the Pope. Why would they do that for any other reason besides believing it, unless they trace their claims back to their actual sources here.

Many of these people not in it for the money, but because they believe mankind is a cancer on the planet "The earth has a cancer, the cancer is man" Club of Rome, 1974

Yes, they said it

Again, some activists will attempt to defuse such claims, one said they were a powerless think tank. OK, let's test that claim. Who are their past and present members, who according to them, could only talk big and do nothing? Unlike the others, the Club of Rome believe so deeply in their agenda they do not keep secrets, as they want people to follow them. They are no different to the others in views and plans, just in their openness. Mikhail Gorbachev, Vaclav Havel, Pierre Trudeau, even if you just take their names as major international figures you can work out the less familiar names have the links to power directly regardless of their own statuses Club of Rome It is all on their own site but not with the longer list of names or analysis.

Finally, anyone still lagging behind, should listen to Mike Hulme, one of the top ten climate scientists working with the UN. He admitted to lying in a Guardian interview, and even had the barefaced cheek to justify it with a scientific (like astrology is scientific) theory, 'Post-Normal Science'. Created by professional liars (as they promote lying to fulfil ends, much like Goebbels and Bernays), Funtowicz and Ravetz, he clearly stated how it works as:

" Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence."

To analyse it based on the words rather than any implied intentions, to whittle it down he said "We need things to change, and are bound to lie to make it happen". That of course is not science, but fraud, so he has admitted, as a top climatologist, both he and his entire consensus is fraudulent. How else can you interpret it?

Original list of quotes with sources 

Proof our governments are crooks

Now had I told people in the evening news that carbon trading had been created by a gas company to cripple the opposition and then stride in and replace the banned coal with gas you'd say I was quoting a poor B movie.

If I went on to say it was then created by a company guilty of the greatest and longest standing organised fraud in the 20th century, collecting millions over many years with no suspicion until a small accounting glitch was traced to a slush fund of stolen money you'd say either I was blowing smoke or if you can't trust those who created a system you can't trust the entire system it's working in.

Enron created carbon trading and credits to create false profits initially to fool the shareholders for a couple of years to hide a massive black hole in their accounts. The future energy profits they included in their accounts attracted so much new investment even when trading recovered a couple of years later then they found the fake side had drawn in so much money it became their primary trade. No one questioned it, as the new money flowing each year guaranteed enough to pay investors a good rate while the directors removed the rest. There was no product, and carbon trading was carried out to penalise the opposition to pave the way for a gas takeover, which also happened gradually to this day.

In the end though they were found out, and while the court sent them all down for running a huge organised scam, the scam was sold to Al Gore and Bill Clinton before they were caught, who then took it on as the law and spread the system across half the world, even though it was proven in a criminal court to be fraudulent.

If the person you have always bought from at a discount turned out to be selling stolen goods, would you still trust them and buy the same things from a new seller when he had been sent to jail, or not touch anything to do with them again? If your investment company you had half a million invested in was caught running a Ponzi scheme but had not lost it yet, would you leave your money in it or take the lot out immediately? I presume every single person would avoid every scheme proved fraudulent, so why do most people support this one as it's actually been created by a bunch of crooks at the highest level and labelled fraud by America's criminal courts? Doesn't that mean you are supporting a fraudulent system and everyone involved in it today must also be criminals as the system is now legal but still 100% dishonest as it was deemed to be obtaining financial benefits by deception, and running both a version of a pyramid and Ponzi scheme. It is proven in law yet it goes on and at least half the people here want more of it.

Stop press, climate scientists believed to be fraudulent!

We regularly (daily) get accusations of the relatively few scientists who disagree with the official view that they have been paid off by the Koch brothers/big oil. Whether or not this is the case it accepts scientists can and maybe are being bribed to produce specific results.

This is very good. It is the first step. Once they accept scientists can and almost certainly are being bribed and do not follow the data but twist it to suit an agenda we can get going. If you then ta...ke their connected claim 97% of the scientists agree with the official view, most if not all get their money from governments, pressure groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, and of course big oil (BP, Shell, Rockefeller, Soros etc, all major investors in both fossil fuel, and renewables, as there are now very few actual oil companies as they deliver energy by any profitable means).

Now we've accepted the principle scientists can be paid off (their claim re Willie Soon, Don Easterbrook, Richard Lindzen etc, all top level professors), is it possible to believe only those against the grain are the crooks, or it could be absolutely any of them?

We often fail to see the obvious even when it is regularly laid out in front of you, and it even took me this long to see this totally direct assumption that qualified scientists can be fraudulent by those on the believing side as well, something the others have said since the start, mainly as plenty of them have simply admitted it (whether directly or in hacked emails), something they on the other hand, have always denied assiduously. Except, they haven't. They simply said 'It's only the ones we disagree with who must be paid off, ours are perfect, look, even 97% of them agree'. But what they unanimously have no said, something they always have claimed but never said, is 'All scientists except rare rogue individuals, are above bribery and corruption'. No, they have simply said all scientists who disagree with them (3% or closer to 50% if you look into it more deeply) are corrupt, but ours of course are perfect. This can only be an illusion (just like the 97%, which is entirely fraudulent as based on about 79/4000 respondents to a single general question who fully agreed and were specifically qualified) as if scientists are corruptible, using deduction, any scientist can be. Not mine, yours or the rogue who is only their own man. There is no other possible formula. Those shouting the loudest that highly qualified climate scientists are fraudulent are the very people who claim they are perfect, above all other professions proven to contain organised fraud- medicine (lysenkoism, eugenics), banking (Libor, Forex and gold price manipulation), the top police (Hillsborough), and science itself (heliocentrism, stomach ulcers, continental drift), although in science in continental drift the problem was in fact not fraud, but mass incompetence, as the consensus of scientists at the time (well over 99%) believe the continents were fixed in place, until, as often happens, one person working alone demonstrated all the others, the overwhelming consensus in fact, all equally or even more highly qualified and specialised, were totally wrong. As with the cause of stomach ulcers, a simple bacteria.

But we have crossed the line into a resolution. Climate scientists are accepted by everyone on both side as being potentially fraudulent. Disagreeing on their identity simply requires the normal evidential process, with confessions, however gained (as we are not in a courtroom), being the highest level besides provenly altered data. Hiding the decline, and Michael Mann's tree ring saga, where he left out every single tree ring except the one which created the hockey stick slope, were two such perfectly crafted examples. The 4-5 wavy lines showing temperature vastly increasing in the late 20th century all snaked across the screen except the yellow one, which stopped about 1960, and turned out that was the one which didn't in fact rise, so was simply cut off before it fell, contradicting the others and creating doubt and uncertainty, and hid the decline.

Deciding which ones are crooks is going to be a whole lot easier than proving the believers accept they can be. That is a done job.

The greater the reward the higher the chances of fraud

It's nice to have the chance to write about law again after so many years away as a teacher. Having studied some criminology the motivation and history of dishonest people has never changed from day one. Basically you have three levels of individual. The leader, the one who is a psychopath and has no morals whatsoever, the follower, the one who either is pressurised into joining in from the combination of threats and rewards, or simply works to hide the fraud without benefitting directly, and the clean one who refuses to get involved and is often sacked or implicated as a whistleblower.

Having done a short survey of scientific and related fraud cases, the formula there is no different. The bell shaped curve of most people who wouldn't do it but a few at the end who always do, with more who will given the conditions, and it applies exactly the same to science as every other field. Why not? Scientists don't have an integrity field not present in all other areas, like everyone else they are human first and scientists second. The same spread of good and bad people and equal susceptibility to outside pressures. And in science with fierce competition for publication and ultimately maybe even a Nobel Prize the stakes become incredibly high.

So as a result we have a recent 21st century record of mainly internally administered discipline, but at the far end at least one court case as the system decided the fraud was too serious to overlook. I won't make this into a database of related cases as there's no shortage of those already, but a way to analyse and present the formula involved of scientific fraud, especially the major issue that nearly every guilty example was indeed peer reviewed. This is because peer review assumes honesty so was never designed for it. Therefore more garbage gets through and the general public simply assume it's genuine as they don't know how the system works, and takes a sharp eyed witness to call them for something not feeling right. I'll add some links at the end to see the details. But the main formula here is the greater the reward the greater the chance of fraud. Cut to America and the EU. They have spent billions of government (our) money on one thing in the last decade, climate research. That is where the big bucks are, and traditionally scientists have studied very hard, worked even harder, and like performers only the top few have done really well. The rest make a good living, but nothing like law or accountancy. They are partly teachers and partly researchers, and if not employed by the private sector have their salaries limited by public funds, which represent the great majority employed in universities.

Competing for grants means each project is funded, but the expenses and exact fate of the amount is barely followed, the money is for the research and expected to be used for it. If they produce the results then no one goes back and asks how many hotel rooms were paid for, it is assumed the money was spent on the research and whatever else was required to do so. This means roughly if they produce the results in the reasonable time, no one will check the hours they actually spent and whether £500 went on computer time, test tubes or a week's holiday. You get the drift. But the really big rewards are from fame, with the associated speaking fees and media appearances, like footballers. Get a major paper used by the government and you're a scientific celebrity. Some can charge many thousands for a single lecture and enhance their salary ten times or more from being the person who wrote that paper. The rarity with which they actually catch them out for faking either some or in some cases the entire material means the risks involved are almost zero. Which takes us nicely in a circle to the rule, the greater the reward the likelier the fraud.

Then imagine the protection required to maintain the golden goose laying its eggs. Climategate exposed the backroom mechanisms in both calling some experts in private on their cheating, which is obvious to their real peers who know exactly what they're doing and how they do it, and far worse the vast efforts they made to hide it when they did pick it up. Looking back on the famous frauds like Enron and Bernie Madoff which took years to discover, totally by chance after passing various investigations officially, it shows even though sharp eyes can spot the signs instantly the system itself takes years to decide to investigate the rare times it does (normally they are part of the fraud so the great majority go unchallenged), but with criminal prosecutions for Libor fixing, gold price fixing and doctoring police evidence at the very top in Hillsborough looking very far away, despite the confessions already being made and civil penalties collected in some cases, shows how unlikely anyone involved will ever be dealt with. Knowing this those with the will to do so realise they are almost certainly fireproof, and if ever challenged can usually get those same peers (like Lord Oxburgh who headed the Climategate investigation, who was part of the same community he was investigating) to get the result they want. With Libor, claims the banks only did it as they were ordered to makes perfect sense in two ways, firstly how can banks cheat the figures every single day for years without the slightest reaction, and secondly and more importantly, if any case went to trial then the perpetrators who gave the orders would be revealed, and the government would end up prosecuting its own civil servants at the very top. Imagine the effect on the voters. Even if the ministers themselves could protect themselves from direct implication the confidence would go down the toilet and people would rightly assume it wasn't just this lot but probably all of them.

It really doesn't take much to draw your own conclusions from here. The links below show the examples, the mechanisms involved, and the total absence of any scrutiny from peer review.

First US case of criminal science fraud

"My interest is in correcting the science and bringing this academic cheating to light," he said, "and maybe sending a message saying, 'You're being watched, and you shouldn't do it.'"

The case is: U.S. ex rel. Jones v. Brigham and Women's Hospital, et al, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No: 10-2301

You can't get grants easily without cheating

Returning to my target of climatologists having the currently greatest temptations and largest protection system on the planet, here is the only parliament in the world prepared to question the IPCC and its entire system directly, albeit only the opposition in the form of the US Republican party, the only serious group on the planet not part of this dominant mindset.

US IPCC committee findings

 “Well, the IPCC does not perform science itself and doesn’t monitor the climate, but only reviews carefully selected scientific literature.”

Now what this is basically saying is the IPCC is the highest level of peer review, meaning it does not question the veracity of its studies (otherwise how would Greenpeace articles written to scare people to stop using fossil fuel, or fabricated figures about melting Himalayan glaciers which had never actually be measured pass the test?) but treats it all pretty much the same and with a built in agenda appears to either get a vast majority of similar material presented, or in the case of Richard Tol who actually wanted his own genuine findings to be used, reject them when they do not agree. So any claims of consensus or homogeneity are merely the effect of self selection and if the figures don't fit the first time do what the accountants are trained to do in the first year (I was there so I know), take the same figures and use them to present a profit or a loss depending if it's for the shareholders or the taxman. And as climatology isn't as tightly regulated as accounting then you needn't hold the figures over till the following year as you have to present them eventually, you can keep them under the carpet indefinitely. Warming they say is bad for the planet but bloody good for the career, so it has to be maintained, even when it isn't happening and not happening so much they can't even adjust it away. If global warming was as real as they claim, then if the temperature started falling they'd all be dancing in the streets, not claiming it must be hiding somewhere else. And as the majority of them claim it's in the deep ocean where it's impossible to physically measure but they still insist that's where it nearly all must be, we're back to the Himalayan glacier situation again, except in this case it's probably never going to be possible to measure the true figures. That wouldn't happen in a genuine area.

Which world temperature would you like sir?

We've already looked at the increasingly audacious adjustments added to the original data to make any temperature graph into a hockey stick, but now we have three competing temperatures altogether.

If you look at the one most people know here

There's also one with the peak a few years later, and both compete on equal terms, apparently depending on what the user wants to show, although clearly both can't be right.

Now we have an entirely new one which takes the same sources and shows a totally different result.

Clearly only one can be right, even if you then factor in anomalies or not (they make no difference), which layer of air measure or the surface (very little difference) or ground v satellite (negligible). And some are clever enough to combine some to avoid such glitches, but these three (which was only two until now) are now competing for primacy, even though it proves either they cannot measure temperature adequately, or far worse are deliberately altering the graphs as most people wouldn't know. That is a crime.

Economic fraud

Tying up earlier threads, here are as many examples as I can think of of governments making policies not for you and me, the majority, but minority vested interests, and if anyone else benefits it's only a coincidence as a passing benefit.

Low interest rates: Who gets to borrow at 0.5%, only banks, so by following qui bono, who benefits, this is solely to keep banks afloat and borrow for almost nothing and pay back almost nothing on their currently huge debts. The government also pay base rate so that goes for them as well. Around 70% of the people are net savers (including all pensioners as that is behind their pension rate as well) so that formula speaks for itself, we suffer for the benefit of banks.

Managed inflation: Believe them or not, inflation is a bad thing, always was and always will be. Like a fever our body needs to be a certain optimum temperature, as does the economy. Inflation is a fever, and who benefits from an economic fever? Borrowers, as the amount they borrowed is worth less. But look to the post above and you will see they are a minority, so by setting a target of 2% or any other positive rate of inflation the government deliberately want to skim 2% off the wealth of all its citizens who are not engaged in the sort of shady business which requires false growth through inflation to help it along.

Fake growth: Yes, Britain is growing again, but only because they include fake figures in it, ie inflation, borrowing and government spending. Yes, people will look taller in a photo if they stand on a box, but whether or not you can see it in the photo itself it is not really making them taller. Only increased capital, ie manufacturing, added value and infrastructure can grow an economy in reality, everything else is froth and the very fact they blatantly include it while all economists know the difference is to con the public to believe they are doing a good job and will vote for them again.

Immigration: Who benefits from immigration besides the immigrants, if economic (who most currently are) it means their country is in a dire state so who wouldn't work in a successful country especially when they can't even find work in their own? So the country spends hundreds of years building itself up since the industrial revolution, and then unlike most other developed countries opens its doors to nearly everyone and shows no sign or wish to reduce the number. Then besides the false accusations of racism (as many who oppose immigration are from all races besides white British) they pretend we need the workers and activity. But despite more pensioners living longer, most immigrants are not short term visitors but settle here and most remain for life. And what happens then, they get old as well so simply shift the present issue to the future when we'll have even more pensioners. But most immigrants from poor countries also vote Labour, so Labour opened the doors, and councils all get tax per head, so pack tighter and tighter densities 'as if they were getting the money themselves'. I say this but the fact so many do it implies there must be a very good reason for doing so, you can work out conclusions for yourself.

Of course there are only so many jobs vacant at any point in time, so if 250,000 new people arrive each year or so and the vacancies remain the same the result is obvious. But as currently they can get benefits if they can't find a job (which they generally won't much back home) why should they worry either way? But overall nothing besides the old policy from the 80s and before, which is still operated in many other countries today, of selective immigration up to an annual limit the country can cope with (you can't build new hospitals and schools to keep up otherwise etc) plus genuine refugees, will keep the economy from distortion from unpredictable and erratic workforces, and downward trend on wages due to increased supply of workers, especially unskilled who always make up the majority. Not to mention the local tension created of pockets of transposed towns and villages from elsewhere who often stick together and won't even learn English in many cases. But economically alone immigration should be selective and calculated not virtually at will. It is nowhere near as simple as the other issues here as it is a physical rather than economic issue directly, but with some very clear economic results, none of which are beneficial in total unless managed very specifically.

High house prices: Of course I have mentioned this as the flagship symptom of a growing decline to third world status. Unless you own more properties than the ones you live in you suffer from rising house prices, as Britain has gone from around the average house costing 3X average income to 10X. If you can't afford to buy a house then what else is worth having instead? Only property dealers profit, of course including banks, church authorities, property companies and investment companies, plus the new trick of foreign money launderers buying houses in London as no questions are asked and they get around 10% interest a year profit on average which forces the rest up accordingly. Everyone else sees their fixed income getting less and less as a result, and is the highest (but unrecorded) cause of inflation there is.

Taxing essentials: Direct taxation on fuel and energy, which in Britain is some of the highest in the world, means as everyone needs to be the same temperature (ask a doctor) they can't choose to turn the heating down, and as they all need the same minimum calorie intake the same goes for cutting down on food. Tax those and the poor then have less left over for everything else as we all need to eat and keep warm. So governments who tax fuel and energy when otherwise they would be affordable may as well be picking off a percentage of old and poor people by decree to die each year whether they do it directly or indirectly, as the results are known to kill thousands a year unnecessarily, as without the tax petrol at the very least would cost a fraction as much, and also free up billions back to the economy as transport costs would no longer be passed on to retailers as well as the direct costs to all users, public and private.

High income tax: This is a crime. Not by law as theft is legal when carried out officially, however hard someone has worked to rise a head and shoulders above their peers, their money represents longer at college, longer at work or more risks, or a combination of all three, assuming they acquired it legally which is another issue entirely. The incredibly simple and tested law of diminishing returns demonstrates after 50% then the total take reduces accordingly, so when Britain charged 98% in the 70s, and France just started with 75% for the top bracket, they already know the take will reduce for that band, and it is only a jealous and evil natured punishment, and discouragement to remain in the country. The combination of leaving, working less and hiding the money guarantees the state get less the more they tax above 50%, meaning they know they actually collect less and everyone else must pay even more, so why do it?

Carbon credits: This latest trick in the diverse portfolio of theft by stealth is the one example which is a proven crime, as they were created by Enron, used for a few years, and tried as a major fraud against the investors who actually believed buying future profits for energy sales and use could be predicted a year or more in advance, and used to present a healthy picture of profit to invest in a winning company. Except they were created to hide a massive hole in finances, and by the time the hole was filled and profits returned from legitimate trading, the interest generated by nothing, ie their alternative investment option of false assets attracted so much new money that became their main source of income until someone spotted it and it finally came to an end. Not content with creating such a repugnant illusion, before they were eventually busted the CEO Ken Lay met Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and they adopted it as the major weapon to gain even more money in the same way, in the guise of saving global warming, which has now made Al Gore a billionaire by paying his own company credits, proving my point. Meanwhile a decade or more after these taxes have been in place the CO2 they were claimed to reduce has continued rising at the same rate it has since they found it was, but the failure of the actual aim of the tax has never deterred a single country from continuing and increasing it, telling the people it was clearly too low so didn't work. And if people believe it it will continue rising forever while CO2 follows.

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

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."

Canadian report 

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.

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.

 

 

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

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/david_rockefeller_quote_b593

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidies/index.htm

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. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9853088/RBS-Libor-fine-what-the-authorities-said.html

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. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9852260/RBS-traders-tried-to-fly-above-law-as-taxpayer-owned-bank-hit-with-392m-fine.html

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.

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.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
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.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
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.

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.