The comparison between global warming and traditional frauds going back to the old testament can be demonstrated by a single example, showing both the scam itself and more importantly the exploitation of those of weaker minds (sadly the majority or it wouldn't ever be possible) who take things on face value however obvious it is to others it's nonsense.
Women Empowering Women was a perfect example, where women (obviously) paid thousands for membership, of what was simply a chain letter. They used standard, Anthony Robbins-style high powered sales meetings, fake winners like the mock auctions on Oxford Street, and random cheques to real people to suck them in. All that happened were those at the bottom paid those at the top until the police moved in, but before this happened the BBC interviewed many members, explained how it works, and the majority said they'd carry on paying.
Full story here
This basically meant someone had thrown some money away on a promise of making some (they didn't know or care where from) and when it was explained why very few of them would, and all that happened was new members paid old ones until they ran out (each level requiring double the last membership) nearly all didn't understand it. It's not complicated. The only requirement to 'win' was getting there early, lasting long enough to be paid off, and leave. But even so, some had won and paid more to stay in. They invited friends and family, who of course came too late and lost everything, and still defended it.
You have to be damn stupid to not just fall for this, as everyone can make a mistake, but not understand it's a con when told in very simple terms, and stupidity occurs when you make the same mistake twice or ignore advice you are making one.
Now take this phenomenon elsewhere, from every other pyramid scheme and scam, to global warming:
1) Could you tell if no one told you?
2) How do you know the figures are accurate?
3) Have you noticed the majority of reports are based in the future, many outside your lifespan?
4) Have you noticed the widespread use of induction, taking specific weather events and claiming it's because of global warming?
5) Are there inconsistencies, where you find different data for the same areas such as temperature and sea levels?
My background is in law, not science, but both use scientific method and require a similar level of evidence before reaching any conclusion. If something doesn't seem quite right (imagine watching a police show interviewing a suspect or defendant in court), any experienced investigator will almost instantly pick up the inconsistencies and pull the subject apart with direct questions. If their oppo then gives a different story the jury will at least know someone has to be lying.
DETAILS:
1) This is of vital importance. Can you tell the planet is warming, let alone why? Even with all the measurements available science struggles to keep up, with massive land based gaps and adjustments for them, and impossible to record every single weather incident. But program weak minds and they will look for any trouble, just as people scratch when you mention fleas, and then filter out everything which does not support their search. The rulers know this and exploit it.
2) Many major reports including from the IPCC have been revised. Past temperatures, including the entire Medieval Warm Period were wiped, and when new methods become available (usually computer programs, or in the case of the non-melting Himalayan glaciers, someone went and looked), so basically climate figures are estimates which may be close or in the glacier's case, 300 billion tons a year out (as opposed to zero). The same applies for investments and other memes such as solar panels, where the ponzi subsidies are the only source of return, the panels themselves simply being the vehicle for the pyramid to operate.
3) Science must be observable. If the IPCC place all their disastrous ends between 2050 and 2100 (bearing in mind this was in the 90s) it is impossible to know either way. If you can't test your theory you haven't got a theory.
4) Despite the IPCC saying not to judge any short term weather either supporting or disproving global warming, the media (backed up by unlimited scientists) use every single hot and extreme weather event as almost absolute proof it is real. Having such double standards is the trademark of propaganda, not science.
5) Just like criminal interviews, if you keep coming up with more than one set of data for the same are, someone's lying. In criminal trials however the defendant is entitled to do all they can to avoid conviction. In business and science it is simply fraud. Even if displaying varying temperature diagrams from report to report is a sign the providers are not certain.
These five alone, especially when added together, ought to raise major alarm bells with the intelligent, which will come as no surprise to see they have. But take Buddha's main human weaknesses, greed, fear, and ignorance (only anger is left, but used later on), combine any one with a lowish IQ and you have a formula to scam the world, and because of the fear/greed addition (fear in this case, combined with greed to silence the intelligent businesses who profit from it with vast subsidies mainly from poor people on their energy bills) make even the averagely intelligent stupid, as fear and greed drop the IQ temporarily to moron level. Because of the second stage of dismissing data, they have an almost watertight formula, one which like the pyramid schemes, only ends when time makes the truth become revealed to all, the money has long gone and the people feel as stupid as they are.
But simply being aware of the truth in any form may be enough to gain one person at a time. So by explaining a psychological phenomenon exploited by the more intelligent but lacking a conscience I am teaching as many people as read this how and why global warming is a pyramid scheme based on fear and greed, fear of your children's future welfare propped up by the greed of scientists and companies making billions (like Al Gore alone) from the scheme.
Bernie Madoff, the South Sea Bubble and Women Empowering Women are pure and perfect examples of such a scam, but of course they can be made as complicated as you wish, but the model behind them can never change, you lose everything unless you are very lucky or running the scam. So a few people have invested in wind and solar at the start and taking our hard earned money getting interest or power rebates ten times over market rate (52.5% a year for ten years for wind farms) but they have still stolen the money in the same way the 'winners' do in any pyramid scheme. But the formula always works out the same. The few become rich from the many, who only discover it after it's too late. But this scam is set to last so long we can get enough people to find out before we're all using fire to replace our gas and electricity again.
Sunday, 18 November 2012
Friday, 16 November 2012
A list of known climate errors and anomalies
The media and politicians treat the climate figures with certainty, and the rare times they report incidences of major error they sweep it away and say it makes no difference to the big picture. But when you see them all in one place do they actually become the big picture itself?
Alaskan glaciers defy the trend
Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.
That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle.
NASA satellite finds new CO2 replaces stronger water vapour
Temperature satellite found to be 10X higher than reality
The ocean acidification claims exposed
Climate refugees predicted in the millions by UN
Climate refugees are the effects of dangerous climate change, 50 million predicted by 2010 by the UN. Don't make predictions, some people save them and bring them out if they're still alive to do so. There weren't any. Pretty well covers the rest then as all based on the same figures.
Sea level rise is falling
Increased clouds do not increase warming
Tree rings can grow from CO2 alone
Tree ring proxy data used to create a good part of the rise in Michael Mann's hockey stick diagram turns out to use trees which also grow (as many do) larger simply from more CO2 as it acts as a fertiliser. So much so greenhouses use around 1200ppm as it makes the plants grow far bigger. So instead of the rings demonstrating a higher temperature they are showing at least half the increase was simply caused by the gas claimed to raise the temperature. And they've got PhD's?
BEST temperature analysis finds changes may be natural
After checking the recent temperature records for authenticity, Berkeley University's team found them generally correct, but added this at the end which papers such as The Guardian, who made it one of the biggest headlines of the year, forgot to include themselves, making the whole thing appear to be man made rather than:
“Such changes may be independent responses to a common forcing (e.g.greenhouse gases); however, it is also possible that some of the land warming is a direct response to changes in the AMO region. If the long-term AMO changes have been driven by greenhouse gases then the AMO region may serve as a positive feedback that amplifies the effect of greenhouse gas forcing over land. On the other hand, some of the long-term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”
Japanese satellite finds CO2 emitted by unpopulated areas only. Media miss it.
Yes, the only satellite designed to measure where CO2 is emitted from released its findings in 2011, amazing the seven readers who could find it that it turned out not to come from industry after all. Phew, that was a relief, if anyone actually was told that is.
Natural causes dominate extreme weather This one's direct from the UN so had better bloody listen.
"Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios
generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three
decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain."
Tell the politicians!
Some leaked emails:
Phil Jones reveals the Department of Energy supports hiding temperature data: 'Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data'
"I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about."
Busted!
#4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review.
what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.
[and later]
Unsatisfying, perhaps, since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered. A good topic for needed future work.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.*** (Kevin Trenberth)
--------------------------
Climate follows natural 60 year cycles
Northern Europe probably warmer in the past
More major uncertainty raised. 2000 year tree ring study shows Europe was indeed warmer twice in the past. And if one continent appears to have been overestimated, what about the others?
US govt agencies fixed the data
James Hansen's errors corrected, temperatures fall
"1998 was not even the hottest year of the last century. This is because many temperatures from recent decades that appeared to show substantial warming have been revised downwards."
This was written in 2007 and they are still using the old figures despite correcting them for themselves. That is not science is it?
Real temperature in 2010 way below IPCC's lowest estimate
If the models can't estimate the future temperatures with any degree of accuracy, how can they predict anything more complicated?
20th century warming is normal The first similar paper of many to follow
Himalayan glacier data made up for decades
"The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.
The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."
Oh yes? And the cheque's in the post. Yes, they 'assumed' the ice had melted but had never actually measured it.
James Hansen predicts the future in 1985
Yes, as anyone with a brain could work out, he was wrong, by about a factor of 100. But the UN still use them as the basis of their entire policies.
"To summarize, Hanson et al. believe that it is quite possible Earth could end up ice free with CO2 levels of 350 ppm which is well below where we currently are. Because the melting of Antarctic ice takes centuries there is time to lower the "tipping point" level of CO2 before it is too late. When Antarctica was last ice-free, sea levels were 70m (~230 feet) higher than today."
They are now 396ppm in 2012, the temperature is the same as it was in 1996.
James Hansen predicted temperature and sea level rises of a few degrees and feet by 2020 at the latest in the 80s. In 2012 the temperature rose less than half a degree and the sea by a couple of inches. He continues to make similar predictions to this day although clearly nowhere close to reality from the beginning.
------------------------
CO2 vs temperature. No correlation. Solar activity vs temperature, very clear correlation
Emperor penguins, whose long treks across Antarctic ice to mate have been immortalised by Hollywood, are heading towards extinction, scientists say. Based on predictions of sea ice extent from climate change models, the penguins are likely to see their numbers plummet by 95% by 2100. That level of decline could wreak havoc on the delicate Antarctic food chain. The research is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. --BBC News, 26 January 2009
Nearly twice as many emperor penguins inhabit Antarctica as was thought. UK, US and Australian scientists used satellite technology to trace and count the iconic birds, finding them to number almost 600,000. The extent of sea ice in the Antarctic has been relatively stable in recent years (unlike in the Arctic), although this picture hides some fairly large regional variations. --Jonathan Amos, BBC News, 13 April 2012
any chance of a 'sorry' as well? Thought not.
CO2 effects on sea level 'undetectable' Sea level changes driven by natural causes
CO2 power halves when doubled, to eventual zero
Yes, when CO2 doubles from 260 to 520 ppm (minus any feedback) 1C would be added, double that and 0.5C is added etc, meaning it becomes so little effective after 500ppm or so any further rises are entirely irrelevant. I am not aware of this diagram being in any dispute, just ignored by those who make policies.
Dissenting scientists- no possible consensus here
.we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols..
More gross errors
"It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.
The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ..."
Compare with Himalayan glacier errors to see a pattern not an isolated example.
Nobel laureate denies global warming
He's not alone
In contrast to Crutzen and Molina, Giaever found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case:
“What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”
He disagreed that carbon dioxide was involved and showed several charts that asserted, among other things, that climate had even cooled.
A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today - despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.
"We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, one of the scientists leading the study. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy."
NASA reduce doubling of CO2 to 1.64C rise
Temperature errors exposed
Solar effects discovered
"Paper finds climate is 'highly sensitive to extremely weak' changes in solar activity
A paper published in Science by the esteemed geologist Dr. Gerard Bond and colleagues finds that "Earth’s climate system is highly sensitive to extremely weak perturbations in the Sun’s energy output, not just on the decadal scales that have been investigated previously, but also on the centennial to millennial time scales."
Norwegian universities can find no warming
IPCC estimates three times higher than reality
Not the hockey stick
Hottest year ever? Nope Temperatures were higher from 4-800 years ago regardless of a medieval warm period or not. Although that was also in the IPCC records until 1995 when they replaced it.
Remember those tree rings? He's had to correct them. Yes, finding CO2 makes tree rings grow on its own they've had to dump the old diagram after all before someone gets into trouble.
We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.
ie 'we got it wrong, sorry everyone'
Sea level measurements turn out to be wrong
The satellites weren't aimed at the surface, apparently, so reading around double the actual level, but the data still contributed to the graphs for many years.
More and more, Arctic ice loss many times less than thought as the data has since been filtered:
After a summer of absolute media overload, the Grace satellite has just refined its findings and found the loss of Arctic ice to be many times less than previously thought, as the spurious data was so great it took them this long to filter it out. The loss is now within the error margin, ie negligible. Which is logical going by the lack of warming for over 15 years now.
Here it is
" While overall ice loss on Greenland consistently increased between 2003 and 2010, Harig and Simons found that it was in fact very patchy from region to region.
In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.
The rate of loss of ice from Greenland is estimated at 199.72 plus-or-minus 6.28 gigatonnes per year. So the possible acceleration of losses is only barely larger than the margin of error in the readings: it's very difficult to tell the supposed loss curve from a straight line."
I'm sure both the IPCC and media will take this on board and change their approaches accordingly </sarc>
Alaskan glaciers defy the trend
Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.
That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle.
NASA satellite finds new CO2 replaces stronger water vapour
Temperature satellite found to be 10X higher than reality
The ocean acidification claims exposed
Climate refugees predicted in the millions by UN
Climate refugees are the effects of dangerous climate change, 50 million predicted by 2010 by the UN. Don't make predictions, some people save them and bring them out if they're still alive to do so. There weren't any. Pretty well covers the rest then as all based on the same figures.
Sea level rise is falling
Increased clouds do not increase warming
Tree rings can grow from CO2 alone
Tree ring proxy data used to create a good part of the rise in Michael Mann's hockey stick diagram turns out to use trees which also grow (as many do) larger simply from more CO2 as it acts as a fertiliser. So much so greenhouses use around 1200ppm as it makes the plants grow far bigger. So instead of the rings demonstrating a higher temperature they are showing at least half the increase was simply caused by the gas claimed to raise the temperature. And they've got PhD's?
BEST temperature analysis finds changes may be natural
After checking the recent temperature records for authenticity, Berkeley University's team found them generally correct, but added this at the end which papers such as The Guardian, who made it one of the biggest headlines of the year, forgot to include themselves, making the whole thing appear to be man made rather than:
“Such changes may be independent responses to a common forcing (e.g.greenhouse gases); however, it is also possible that some of the land warming is a direct response to changes in the AMO region. If the long-term AMO changes have been driven by greenhouse gases then the AMO region may serve as a positive feedback that amplifies the effect of greenhouse gas forcing over land. On the other hand, some of the long-term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”
Japanese satellite finds CO2 emitted by unpopulated areas only. Media miss it.
Yes, the only satellite designed to measure where CO2 is emitted from released its findings in 2011, amazing the seven readers who could find it that it turned out not to come from industry after all. Phew, that was a relief, if anyone actually was told that is.
Natural causes dominate extreme weather This one's direct from the UN so had better bloody listen.
"Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios
generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three
decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain."
Tell the politicians!
Some leaked emails:
Phil Jones reveals the Department of Energy supports hiding temperature data: 'Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data'
"I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about."
Busted!
#4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review.
what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.
[and later]
Unsatisfying, perhaps, since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered. A good topic for needed future work.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.*** (Kevin Trenberth)
--------------------------
Climate follows natural 60 year cycles
Northern Europe probably warmer in the past
More major uncertainty raised. 2000 year tree ring study shows Europe was indeed warmer twice in the past. And if one continent appears to have been overestimated, what about the others?
US govt agencies fixed the data
James Hansen's errors corrected, temperatures fall
"1998 was not even the hottest year of the last century. This is because many temperatures from recent decades that appeared to show substantial warming have been revised downwards."
This was written in 2007 and they are still using the old figures despite correcting them for themselves. That is not science is it?
Real temperature in 2010 way below IPCC's lowest estimate
If the models can't estimate the future temperatures with any degree of accuracy, how can they predict anything more complicated?
20th century warming is normal The first similar paper of many to follow
Himalayan glacier data made up for decades
"The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.
The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."
Oh yes? And the cheque's in the post. Yes, they 'assumed' the ice had melted but had never actually measured it.
James Hansen predicts the future in 1985
Yes, as anyone with a brain could work out, he was wrong, by about a factor of 100. But the UN still use them as the basis of their entire policies.
"To summarize, Hanson et al. believe that it is quite possible Earth could end up ice free with CO2 levels of 350 ppm which is well below where we currently are. Because the melting of Antarctic ice takes centuries there is time to lower the "tipping point" level of CO2 before it is too late. When Antarctica was last ice-free, sea levels were 70m (~230 feet) higher than today."
They are now 396ppm in 2012, the temperature is the same as it was in 1996.
James Hansen predicted temperature and sea level rises of a few degrees and feet by 2020 at the latest in the 80s. In 2012 the temperature rose less than half a degree and the sea by a couple of inches. He continues to make similar predictions to this day although clearly nowhere close to reality from the beginning.
------------------------
CO2 vs temperature. No correlation. Solar activity vs temperature, very clear correlation
Emperor penguins, whose long treks across Antarctic ice to mate have been immortalised by Hollywood, are heading towards extinction, scientists say. Based on predictions of sea ice extent from climate change models, the penguins are likely to see their numbers plummet by 95% by 2100. That level of decline could wreak havoc on the delicate Antarctic food chain. The research is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. --BBC News, 26 January 2009
Nearly twice as many emperor penguins inhabit Antarctica as was thought. UK, US and Australian scientists used satellite technology to trace and count the iconic birds, finding them to number almost 600,000. The extent of sea ice in the Antarctic has been relatively stable in recent years (unlike in the Arctic), although this picture hides some fairly large regional variations. --Jonathan Amos, BBC News, 13 April 2012
any chance of a 'sorry' as well? Thought not.
CO2 effects on sea level 'undetectable' Sea level changes driven by natural causes
CO2 power halves when doubled, to eventual zero
Yes, when CO2 doubles from 260 to 520 ppm (minus any feedback) 1C would be added, double that and 0.5C is added etc, meaning it becomes so little effective after 500ppm or so any further rises are entirely irrelevant. I am not aware of this diagram being in any dispute, just ignored by those who make policies.
Dissenting scientists- no possible consensus here
.we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols..
More gross errors
"It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.
The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ..."
Compare with Himalayan glacier errors to see a pattern not an isolated example.
Nobel laureate denies global warming
He's not alone
In contrast to Crutzen and Molina, Giaever found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case:
“What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”
He disagreed that carbon dioxide was involved and showed several charts that asserted, among other things, that climate had even cooled.
A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today - despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.
"We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, one of the scientists leading the study. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy."
NASA reduce doubling of CO2 to 1.64C rise
Temperature errors exposed
Solar effects discovered
"Paper finds climate is 'highly sensitive to extremely weak' changes in solar activity
A paper published in Science by the esteemed geologist Dr. Gerard Bond and colleagues finds that "Earth’s climate system is highly sensitive to extremely weak perturbations in the Sun’s energy output, not just on the decadal scales that have been investigated previously, but also on the centennial to millennial time scales."
Norwegian universities can find no warming
IPCC estimates three times higher than reality
Not the hockey stick
Hottest year ever? Nope Temperatures were higher from 4-800 years ago regardless of a medieval warm period or not. Although that was also in the IPCC records until 1995 when they replaced it.
Remember those tree rings? He's had to correct them. Yes, finding CO2 makes tree rings grow on its own they've had to dump the old diagram after all before someone gets into trouble.
We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.
ie 'we got it wrong, sorry everyone'
Sea level measurements turn out to be wrong
The satellites weren't aimed at the surface, apparently, so reading around double the actual level, but the data still contributed to the graphs for many years.
More and more, Arctic ice loss many times less than thought as the data has since been filtered:
After a summer of absolute media overload, the Grace satellite has just refined its findings and found the loss of Arctic ice to be many times less than previously thought, as the spurious data was so great it took them this long to filter it out. The loss is now within the error margin, ie negligible. Which is logical going by the lack of warming for over 15 years now.
Here it is
" While overall ice loss on Greenland consistently increased between 2003 and 2010, Harig and Simons found that it was in fact very patchy from region to region.
In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.
The rate of loss of ice from Greenland is estimated at 199.72 plus-or-minus 6.28 gigatonnes per year. So the possible acceleration of losses is only barely larger than the margin of error in the readings: it's very difficult to tell the supposed loss curve from a straight line."
I'm sure both the IPCC and media will take this on board and change their approaches accordingly </sarc>
Monday, 12 November 2012
Open confessions
There is nothing like a conspiracy for a conspiracy. From time to time those behind world policy, through the UN top down via Agenda 21, have openly admitted it's a scam. The second and possibly greater issue is although I know it and if you've read it so do you, it's not with the help of the press, they have dynamite and will not light the fuse. The claim Obama directed the media since becoming president seems a lot less far fetched when you go online and find some of these quotes absent beyond the original site, even though genuine and respected sources. This means the Rupert Murdochs and BBCs of the world, far from being opponents, are working together to protect the system from being destroyed by a single thing, knowledge. Alex Jones already listed many of these at Infowars, and I am selecting the best with no wriggle room for any doubt. It's been said since at least 1974 and regularly ever since, and still hardly anyone knows about it. Tell them!
Ottmar Edenhoffer said in a 2010 interview with NZZ online in Germany:
"...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..."
-----------------------------------------
Margaret Mead in 1974:
"After they break from a comfortable egg, the human maggots move in two dimensions and become second-level maggots who crash other maggots in proportionality with their own weight, who defecate all over the environment, and who eat the defecation from the other, usually larger maggots.
Some of these humans become tenth-level maggots who are big wheels. That's what the consensus environmentalist and global warming science knew about the humans and their co-existence with the environment at least since 1972."
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Henry Kissinger, in address to the Bilderberg Group at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 (Page 83-84 The Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin)
"Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troups entered Los angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is expecially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existance. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this
------------------------------------------
The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
Ottmar Edenhoffer said in a 2010 interview with NZZ online in Germany:
-----------------------------------------
Margaret Mead in 1974:
"What
we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient
conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible
from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political
interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial
but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of
animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts
before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending
climatic changes by growing thicker coats"
-----------------------------------------------------
The Club of Rome's 1991 publicly
available report 'The First Global Revolution'
“The
common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
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."
---------------------------------------------
David Suzuki, one of the group who believe mankind is a cancer on the planet and call humans not in their elite 'useless eaters'
"After they break from a comfortable egg, the human maggots move in two dimensions and become second-level maggots who crash other maggots in proportionality with their own weight, who defecate all over the environment, and who eat the defecation from the other, usually larger maggots.
Some of these humans become tenth-level maggots who are big wheels. That's what the consensus environmentalist and global warming science knew about the humans and their co-existence with the environment at least since 1972."
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Rockefeller, in his 2003 memoirs:
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
------------------------------------------------
Henry Kissinger, in address to the Bilderberg Group at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 (Page 83-84 The Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin)
"Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troups entered Los angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is expecially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existance. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this
evil. The one thing everyman fears
is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights
will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being
granted to them by their world government,"
------------------------------------------
The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame, Climate modeller, Oxford University
- -----------------------------------
- "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
- -------------------------------------------
- "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
- Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
- ---------------------------------------
- "No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
- ---------------------------------
- Mikael Gorbachev, 1996:
- "The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order"
- ---------------------------------------------
"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies- -----------------------------------------------
- "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
- -----------------------------------------------
- "Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King
- ----------------------------------------------------
- " 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." Mike Hulme
- --------------------------------------------
- These quotes are all on this blog but saved everyone looking for them all. These are not random nutcases, most are either government advisors or lobbyists, and hold the power to direct not just national but world policies. Unless you decide you don't want them and vote for anyone who does not support them. In Britain this means UKIP, in America the Republicans. I think the Australian Liberal party currently also oppose these measures, but not aware of any European parties currently not involved, unless people can let me know who to trust on the continent in the comments.
- On top of these quotes, here's one of the most important news stories of the decade. A year ago in 2011 the Japanese space agency received the results of the Ibuki satellite, the only one to measure world CO2 emissions. It found emissions were from the unpopulated areas, while most industrial areas absorbed it. This would destroy the entire reason for the IPCC's existence, and have not found more than one internet link to it, let alone complete silence by the media. This is one of the most major news stories since Al Gore met with his pals to dream up man made warming, and it's been hidden from view. Why would anyone want to hide such good news, ie 'It's not our fault after all!', unless to them it was bad news as they'd all lose their power and incomes.
- Check it here with graphics
Saturday, 27 October 2012
Where's the hockey stick gone? New study (by hockey stick contributor) says 'tree ring data was biased'
I feel like a storyteller here. Once upon a time a bunch of scientists
got together, and between them made a potion of figures and measurements
which when put together made a hockey stick. The trouble was when
anyone tried to use it it changed shape and wouldn't work, but no one
else could replace it and everyone was forced to try and use it even
though it never seemed to be stable enough to work.
Many years later, although one of his tricks was required to create it, by casting a spell over hundreds of tree rings to make all but a few disappear and use them to both raise the tip of the hockey stick, and then vanish in a tangle of lines when it started heading the wrong way, Keith Briffa saw the angry clouds of fate heading his way, threatening to rain on his chips and make his hockey stick so soggy it could melt away. To quickly get out of the path he and two colleagues went back to the spell and took out all the funny incantations, such as 'abracadabra and alakazam, make these rings for Michael Mann' or 'by the powers of Greyskull make these threes into sevens' and the like, leaving only the boring stuff like 'one and one is two, two and two is four' etc, which is deadly dull but impossible to question.
And then they concluded the trick was only an illusion and should not be relied on. He is probably going to be awarded a halo for this redeeming action, and had they not been part of the same illusion a Nobel Prize. I may even send him a Christmas card myself now.
Where's the beef?
Here be the summary:
We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.
Michael Mann, the official owner of the hockey stick, has yet to answer the revised decision, although it is only but hours old. My bet is he isn't going to though, and for the double no one's going to ask him. Not even Keith, he's already off the hook.
Many years later, although one of his tricks was required to create it, by casting a spell over hundreds of tree rings to make all but a few disappear and use them to both raise the tip of the hockey stick, and then vanish in a tangle of lines when it started heading the wrong way, Keith Briffa saw the angry clouds of fate heading his way, threatening to rain on his chips and make his hockey stick so soggy it could melt away. To quickly get out of the path he and two colleagues went back to the spell and took out all the funny incantations, such as 'abracadabra and alakazam, make these rings for Michael Mann' or 'by the powers of Greyskull make these threes into sevens' and the like, leaving only the boring stuff like 'one and one is two, two and two is four' etc, which is deadly dull but impossible to question.
And then they concluded the trick was only an illusion and should not be relied on. He is probably going to be awarded a halo for this redeeming action, and had they not been part of the same illusion a Nobel Prize. I may even send him a Christmas card myself now.
Where's the beef?
Here be the summary:
We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.
Michael Mann, the official owner of the hockey stick, has yet to answer the revised decision, although it is only but hours old. My bet is he isn't going to though, and for the double no one's going to ask him. Not even Keith, he's already off the hook.
Sunday, 21 October 2012
Wind power? Not quite.
Although I knew the basics the details were very hard to find in one place online, so someone on my Facebook group did the full accounts so the total can be easily shown to demonstrate wind turbines use as much power as they create, ie they do not do anything at all.
---------------------------------
Yaw mechanism to turn the rotor into the wind. 20kW
Pitch mechanism to adjust the blade angle to the wind 15kW
Lights, controllers, communication, sensors, data collection, etc. 10kW
Heating the blades during winter. 250Kw
Heating/cooling and dehumidifying the nacelle. 10kW
Oil heater, pump, cooler and filtering system of the gearbox 25kW
Hydraulic brake to lock the blades when the wind is too strong. 5kW
Thyristors for power conditioning and connection. 25kW
Magnetizing the stator to keep the rotor speed constant 25kW
Using the generator as a motor to help blades start to turn when wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to create the illusion the facility is producing electricity when it is not, particularly during site tours. It also spins the rotor shaft and blades to prevent warping when there is no wind. 50Kw.
TOTAL Installed. 435kW.
Not all items will be used at the same time, although they may be. However, we can generously assume 50% usage, for a parasitic consumption of approximately 215 kW.
Turbine rated wind speed is 12 mps. Cut in speed is 4 mps. Rated power is 2 mW. Power varies as cube of wind speed.
Therefore Power at 4mps is 2,000,000/3x3x3 = 74kW
Nett output is â??141kW
Power at 5mps is 144kW Nett output is -71kW
Power at 6mps is 250kW
Nett output is +35kW
This shows that the machine does not start to produce useful power until wind speeds reach around 6mps, assuming that 35kW from a 2mW machine can be considered as useful.
Published figures for average wind speeds locally (Banbury area. It will vary depending on actual location) at masthead height are 6mps.
There are subsequent losses such as transformer inefficiencies and transmission losses to take power from turbine to grid. We can assume approximately 6% to 15%, depending on the type of equipment and transmission line lengths.
--------------------------------------------------------
Add to that the additional costs of feed in tariffs, guaranteed profits for land rental (including by the British Royal Family, whose leaked correspondence showed they had changed their position on them once they were offered this deal on their own land), and compensation payments for each 'off' day. That sends it well into the red and without said subsidies wind farms simply wouldn't exist in the first place, as all they actually do is redistribute cash mainly on government orders.
---------------------------------
Yaw mechanism to turn the rotor into the wind. 20kW
Pitch mechanism to adjust the blade angle to the wind 15kW
Lights, controllers, communication, sensors, data collection, etc. 10kW
Heating the blades during winter. 250Kw
Heating/cooling and dehumidifying the nacelle. 10kW
Oil heater, pump, cooler and filtering system of the gearbox 25kW
Hydraulic brake to lock the blades when the wind is too strong. 5kW
Thyristors for power conditioning and connection. 25kW
Magnetizing the stator to keep the rotor speed constant 25kW
Using the generator as a motor to help blades start to turn when wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to create the illusion the facility is producing electricity when it is not, particularly during site tours. It also spins the rotor shaft and blades to prevent warping when there is no wind. 50Kw.
TOTAL Installed. 435kW.
Not all items will be used at the same time, although they may be. However, we can generously assume 50% usage, for a parasitic consumption of approximately 215 kW.
Turbine rated wind speed is 12 mps. Cut in speed is 4 mps. Rated power is 2 mW. Power varies as cube of wind speed.
Therefore Power at 4mps is 2,000,000/3x3x3 = 74kW
Nett output is â??141kW
Power at 5mps is 144kW Nett output is -71kW
Power at 6mps is 250kW
Nett output is +35kW
This shows that the machine does not start to produce useful power until wind speeds reach around 6mps, assuming that 35kW from a 2mW machine can be considered as useful.
Published figures for average wind speeds locally (Banbury area. It will vary depending on actual location) at masthead height are 6mps.
There are subsequent losses such as transformer inefficiencies and transmission losses to take power from turbine to grid. We can assume approximately 6% to 15%, depending on the type of equipment and transmission line lengths.
--------------------------------------------------------
Add to that the additional costs of feed in tariffs, guaranteed profits for land rental (including by the British Royal Family, whose leaked correspondence showed they had changed their position on them once they were offered this deal on their own land), and compensation payments for each 'off' day. That sends it well into the red and without said subsidies wind farms simply wouldn't exist in the first place, as all they actually do is redistribute cash mainly on government orders.
Wednesday, 10 October 2012
Breaking the illusions
In the bible the devil was not an openly evil person, as everyone would turn against him and he'd have no power at all. Instead he had to offer everything, deliver enough to gain trust and then screw you up the arse. By then you'd think he was the messiah and may even defend him as it would be impossible to have meant to do something like that and must have been a mistake.
So as our current politicians, who pretend to help and four years later you look back and wonder where your money and rights went, and why so many innocent people abroad are dead.
The current system is built on illusions, but if you learn to recognise them then they are no longer going to be able to work. Here are the major ones I have unpicked to save anyone else having to work it out themselves.
BIG OIL IS AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE LAWS
I have dealt with this already, so will summarise again. There is no such thing as 'big oil'. What you see as 'oil companies' like Shell or BP are energy companies and also diversify in many other areas. Economics works on supply and demand, so if you restrict supply and keep the same demand the prices rise. So restricting all fossil fuel exploration and production will simply raise the prices of what they have and make it last a lot longer. Not to mention the subsidies to diversify into renewables and free carbon permits they sell for millions. Maybe that's why the Climate Research Unit was partly funded by 'big oil'.
GLOBAL WARMING
This is so complicated and hard to decipher it takes a statistician and knowledge of the original, often secret data, Luckily every so often someone is good enough to admit the truth directly to save everyone else the trouble. Like the chief IPCC economist Ottmar Edenhoffer who said in a 2010 interview with 'Bild' magazine:
"...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..."
Although stated openly well before that by Margaret Mead in 1974:
"What
we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient
conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible
from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political
interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial
but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of
animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts
before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending
climatic changes by growing thicker coats"
Otherwise the material is freely available online besides the secret figures we are not allowed to see due to 'commercial sensitivity'. Now since when were weather reports a commercial issue? The answer is since man made global warming became an issue. The fact there are climate change investment funds all over the world tells you most of what you need to know in itself. If it was to save the world it wouldn't be a worldwide business opportunity. Carbon trading, one of the mainstays, was what got the board of Enron convicted for fraud, yet is now used in most countries, and compulsory within the EU. Before it was made legal carbon trading and anything similar was fraudulent. Why would there be so much of a trillion pound business on the back of what was supposed to be environmental unless it was actually designed with that in mind originally?
UN AGENDA 21
This looks like a worthy attempt to protect the environment, so needs a full translation into truth. It was developed back in the 70s by such luminaries as Margaret Mead and the late Stephen Schneider, who, like Edenhoffer, saved people the trouble of investigating too far by stating their aims openly. The bottom line there is the overpopulation problem, which most reasonable people would accept, would be solved not by education but any means they could, ie deliberate depopulation. You can work out what that means yourself. Other implications are means to make the previously rich and polluting countries so poor as to no longer pose such a threat to the environment. There are lists of how to carry these measures in ICLEI, the local implementation rules for councils. These have been adopted in nearly 200 countries.However, such individuals are proud of their beliefs, so if you find their own quotes then they are happy to translate what had since been sanitised into plain English, and once you know the routine can then convert any part or whole of Agenda 21 into the same intentions. Here are some of the actual sentiments which created it:
The Club of Rome's 1991 publicly available report 'The First Global Revolution'
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."
"At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socioeconomic gains and fatally imperil the environment…. The earlier extreme views that social and economic justice alone can somehow offset population increase and that the mere provision of contraception can sufficiently reduce population—were defeated"
"Unless the peoples of the world can begin to understand the immense and long-term consequences of what appear to be small immediate choices—to drill a well, open a road, build a large airplane, make a nuclear test, install a liquid fast breeder reactor, release chemicals which diffuse throughout the atmosphere, or discharge waste in concentrated amounts into the sea—the whole planet may become endangered…."
This quote is a perfect mixture of truth (waste and chemical discharges) and dark forces (oil wells, roads, planes) but happily merged them seamlessly as does today's 'environmental' movement.
Margaret Mead, 1974
http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/11/29/1975-endangered-atmosphere-conference-where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/
"Global cooling—the coming of an ice age—had been in the headlines in the 1970s, but it could not easily be used to sell genocide by getting the citizens of industrial nations to cut back on consumption. Something more drastic and more personal was needed."
-------------------------------------------------
"The mantra of radical environmentalists is that humans are parasites, as seen in this clip of an unwashed David Suzuki comparing humans to fruit flies and maggots.
David Suzuki is an environmental activist who is big especially up in Canada, and has for years been preaching about how humans are a cancer to the earth."
"After they break from a comfortable egg, the human maggots move in two dimensions and become second-level maggots who crash other maggots in proportionality with their own weight, who defecate all over the environment, and who eat the defecation from the other, usually larger maggots.
Some of these humans become tenth-level maggots who are big wheels. That's what the consensus environmentalist and global warming science knew about the humans and their co-existence with the environment at least since 1972."
http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/is-our-beloved-david-suzuki-still-a-eugenicist/environment
LOW INTEREST RATES
What's that- low interest rates help people as it keeps repayments down? Let's analyse this using basic economics. Interest rates are for two types of loans, mortgages and others. Mortgages are more or less compulsory for anyone not rich enough to buy a home for cash or too poor to buy one at all, so cover the majority of people. But then you must look at the difference (the 'spread') between the nominal interest rate, currently 0.5% in the UK, and the actual one. In fact the interest rate is what the banks themselves and the government borrow at. Not you and me. They do track them up to a point, especially when saving, but borrowing rates tend to change only a small amount when they go down and the difference between what they borrow and lend at increases, giving them more (like oil) for doing exactly the same thing, or in the case of giving them money to lend you some, absolutely nothing. Nope, they didn't even earn it, they just lend out investor's money, and then pay them for doing so at the low side of the spread. Therefore when rates are low they borrow at next to nothing, do deals overnight on commodities which go up 1p and they make a million or so as they can invest half a billion (and in the process put the price up simply from their own bid), while again doing no more than press a few buttons. The spread between borrowers and investors increases, so the savers get less but the borrowing rate barely falls, and their profits go up, for doing, well, nothing.
And what about the lucky homeowners? They at least cancel out the losses by the worthy savers who have spent years working for their retirement and now can't pay the bills. They are younger and just starting out in life and really need the help. Well, not exactly. In fact the house prices are related directly to the interest rates. The estate agents use a rough formula of monthly repayments. If a house is £150,000 and rates are 10% then the monthly rates are similar (pardon my maths, it doesn't exist, so only a token example rather than an accurate one) to 5% and £200,000. The customer does not pay any less, at least when buying initially, whatever the interest rates, as the lower the interest rate the higher the price of the house, so the customer ends up paying the same every month regardless as it's the market rate. The worst off are new buyers, as when they buy it's at the highest possible price, and although the current payment is the same for the house regardless of the interest rate, if you buy when they are higher they can go either way, but now they can only go up, so you have paid the most, the savings are temporary, and if you sell after the rate goes up the price will usually go down and you are likely to be in negative equity. No one benefits from low interest rates except the banks and the government, and property developers. A government applying quantitative easing does so to keep interest rates down, but as they are creating cash without increasing the assets with no growth they are only creating future inflation, something we all suffer with except those borrowing at base rate and lending, as they will have their debts eroded away by inflation if already in place, while everyone buying new will pay the higher amounts. And beware savers, many savings rates are below inflation, especially when low.
Tuesday, 3 July 2012
The root of global warming
Copied from a fellow worker for good:
Taken from an article that appeared in the Executive Intelligence Review in 2007.
' "Global Warming" is, and always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the world's population. The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 1974.
' Mead, whose 1928 book on the sex life of South Pacific Islanders was later found to be a fraud recruited like-minded anti-population hoaxsters to the cause: Sow enough fear of man-caused climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development. Mead's leading recruits at the 1975 conference were climate-scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak biologist George Woodwell, and the current AAAS president John Holdren all three of them disciples of malthusian fanatic Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb.[1] Guided by luminaries like these, conference discussion focussed on the absurd choice of either feeding people or "saving the environment." '
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3423init_warming_hoax.html
Taken from an article that appeared in the Executive Intelligence Review in 2007.
' "Global Warming" is, and always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the world's population. The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 1974.
' Mead, whose 1928 book on the sex life of South Pacific Islanders was later found to be a fraud recruited like-minded anti-population hoaxsters to the cause: Sow enough fear of man-caused climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development. Mead's leading recruits at the 1975 conference were climate-scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak biologist George Woodwell, and the current AAAS president John Holdren all three of them disciples of malthusian fanatic Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb.[1] Guided by luminaries like these, conference discussion focussed on the absurd choice of either feeding people or "saving the environment." '
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3423init_warming_hoax.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)