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.
Saturday, 27 October 2012
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 Thursday, 17 May 2012
A summary of 21st century politics
A summary of the powers behind 21st
century world politics
David Howard LL.B (Hons), Dip.
Counselling
Introduction
People around the developed world are
beginning to notice more and more the old divisions between the
parties seem to be closing, with fewer and fewer differences, and
unlike the old opposing policies it seems whoever they vote in
nowadays they seem to agree on the main policies, with the only
variations in the details. I have been investigating this and it
appears to be an open network of organisations of ex and present
political and business leaders holding regular policy meetings, and
then either using them publicly or privately to try and guide the
world to follow their view of how things should be.
The top of the official pile here is
the United Nations itself, making rules by unelected bureacrats which
gradually are being given legal force in all member countries whether
or not the residents are aware of it or not. The European Union is
the open side of this collective form of government, with growing
powers and most rules again made not by the European Parliament, a
mainly second chamber with very limited powers but the long term
civil servant level group the European Commission, making many of
their decisions in private and handed the authority by the parliament
by a consensual delegation. They have even reached the level of
replacing the governments of Greece and Italy directly with unelected
bureacrats in 2012 in case anyone didn't realise their scope.
My own delving back to history took the
main roots back clearly as far as a meeting in 1967 with various top
level high flyers and environmentalists, including James Lovelock,
one of the first of a huge influx of many in his mould. The theme
from day one was finding ways to apparently protect the planet from
human influence, but in fact the solutions were always about
rationing energy and free movement, along with huge rises in taxation
and redistribution of wealth to the third world. The other,
potentially sensible side was reducing the world population,
ostensibly by 80% back to what was called a sustainable level. Of
course, educating and encouraging smaller families worldwide was the
only practical way of doing it, but restricting energy and food would
do the same thing as well, using a term such as managed euthanising.
I will get into those details later.
The bottom line is that all these
shared policies are not a coincidence, anyone who has signed up to
this collective policy, based on a 1991 little known UN legal
document named Agenda 21 for sustainability, will not be using
Liberal, Labour or Conservative policy but UN policy regardless. The
coincidences become more of a plan once you learn the sources.
Besides needing a little translation from the jargon Agenda 21 is
written as an environmental document, and has actually invented the
term sustainability as part of a standard public relations propaganda
campaign of choosing old or new words and creating new meanings for
them. Sustainable actually means whatever you use can be replaced,
but that is as far as the dictionary allows it, Agenda 21 once
converted to standard English goes way beyond that and more.
---------------------------------
How it works
In
any political system you have those who lead and those who follow.
The leaders know their facts and figures and use their positions and
related charisma to operate the usual form of propaganda, that
actually written in great detail by Josef Goebbels, and taken over by
the Soviets and American business (as public relations) to persuade
enough lower politicians and the mass of the general public to vote
them in. This is called 'problem-reaction-solution', where they
identify a policy they know would never be voted for or accepted then create an imaginary situation where the people would be so terrified
they'd call for an urgent immediate solution which just happened to
be exactly what they wanted anyway. To quote Benjamin Franklin,
- Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
But the example
of using the fear of terrorism to increase restrictions and
surveillance worldwide, which no one would ever have wanted or needed
had they not had the fear of something which in fact happens less
than every year or more in nearly every country who has brought in
such measures. But once the bombs had been detonated in public places
the public per country were only too happy to accept spot checks,
cameras everywhere, and official surveillance of private
conversations and the like. Regardless of whether the terrorism in
these cases was as bad as they claimed, the operation worked
perfectly. So if you wanted a world government, tax, and
redistribution of wealth (mainly to those who create the rules as
always), no one would vote for it besides a few fringe elements, but
if you think of the perfect problem that needs world action then
either aliens (even they couldn't conjure those up) or the
environment would work. So, to quote 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."
This
pretty well speaks for itself. They wanted a policy and here was the
solution, for one of the very rare times fully stated as an illusion
and not a true problem. So open and honest, all available online, and
never reported by the media. The same could be said for the creation
of the European Common Market (as it was then) as the alleged problem
there was the threat of another war between its members, although the
reports which have emerged since, including comments by Edward Heath,
that it was never about a market but a gradual move to full political
and economic union, which has steadily occurred per new treaty ever
since. The common position here is the leaders all know the truth,
but speak as if they do not so they can maintain any illusion they
want in public. So currently for example engineering companies like
Siemens know perfectly well that wind turbines use at least as much
power as they produce, from the active electricity required to turn
the blades to the wind and the brakes to stop them spinning too fast
to the power stations on constant standby to take over the majority
of times they aren't producing. But as it's both a waste of time
trying to beat the system with science and associated taxes and
penalties for not doing so, and the subsidised profits available for
taking it on board mean it's a lot easier for them all to join the
bandwagon. Using the simplest physics, without a focussing lens
sunlight is far too diffuse to generate anything more than a small
fraction for a household, and proved if any government reduces the
subsidies neither wind nor solar would exist outside small local
applications as without them it is just a vast outgoing which is
probably never going to pay itself back otherwise. The same goes for
the majority of scientists who create and claim to rely on climate
modelling. The fact the figures 20 years after the original ones
bears no relation to the temperature or sea level rises since, mainly
because besides never having to compare the effects of added CO2 in
living memory or before when such technology wouldn't have been
capable of it at all, the climate is the most complicated non-linear
system we know of, which is exactly why its machinations created
chaos theory. It is chaotic as small changes can produce wide and
complex results, which are not the same twice, and therefore
virtually unpredictable besides the very basics. But you need to
study it first to know it, and 90% of voters at the very least have
not at any significant level. David Rockefeller himself set up the Club of Rome in 1968 at his Bellagio estate, and in his 2003 memoirs affirmed any question of his personal role:
"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."
There are almost identical statements all around the place, each corroborating and confirming the other, yet still despite making open admissions the media have left the gap between the source and the people. Without the media how can the people know, and unless the people know it will carry on. Therefore you can only conclude the media are part of the system, there is no other explanation to avoid what is some of the most radical news of the century.
Henry Kissinger said, "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
"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."
There are almost identical statements all around the place, each corroborating and confirming the other, yet still despite making open admissions the media have left the gap between the source and the people. Without the media how can the people know, and unless the people know it will carry on. Therefore you can only conclude the media are part of the system, there is no other explanation to avoid what is some of the most radical news of the century.
Henry Kissinger said, "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," Address to the Bilderberg
Group at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 (Page 83-84 The Bilderberg Group by
Daniel Estulin)
So a system and
pattern is forming, fringe benefits such as promotions, massive
grants and making government policy are easily enough to take the
genuine consensus of any group of professionals onside, the consensus
being the balance of having enough members of the plan to take the
rest with them as a passive and helpless minority. I have a diagram
of a network of mutual financial and political support fitting
everyone from the Club of Rome and related members to the
politicians, charities, professionals and energy companies, all of
which take huge otherwise unavailable benefits through a collective
collusion. But unless the media both learn the truth (which by their
very nature are party to) and share as well (which in the main they
will not) it then the people will remain in ignorance ruled by
whichever illusions their lords and masters have chosen to totally
manipulate them (the citizens are operating the same consensus
mechanism through credibility, if the majority believe the illusion
they'll always vote for the solution) they will remain ignorant,
exploited and repressed. But once the cover is blown, then this
generation at least will be very unlikely to be caught again. Lose
their trust and they'll gain their freedom.
Although most of
their aims are fairly obvious and connected, the purposes for them of
other aspects such as wealth redistribution remain obscure to
outsiders but are still clear aspects, but besides the personal gains
already mentioned, my main site presents clear and ongoing plans for
a world government, created through the need for a world carbon tax
which is not possible without a world government (of course, how can
we reduce CO2 if everyone doesn't work together?), and a world carbon
currency, one which is not based on assets but on rations, each
credit only lasting a year so impossible to build up any personal
wealth or security. None is a conspiracy theory as it's all
documented and recorded, and simply never reported so how can anyone
oppose something they're not aware of. I'm not even saying a world
government is a bad thing per se, just that if you are voting you
must be aware of what you are actually voting for.
Spotting the clues
Like a magician,
once you know the ways tricks are done they are no longer taken in by
them. The only difference here is the audience know it's an illusion
but just don't know how it's done. This way people need to be shown
the ways and then see them and say 'Now I know what that phrase
really means, who coined it and why, and it means if someone in power
uses it then they can't be working for us'. Therefore if Barack Obama
or anyone else mentions something like clean energy (this includes
nuclear, the most poisonous and toxic material known to man) you know
they are part of that group. The old multi party system where people
really did have a choice, and most politicians did want to help has
all but died in the 21st century. Instead the
international organised UN led cabal is in charge, and the people
have all been spun the same lines the banks are too big to fail and
we'd all be poor if we left the EU etc etc ad nauseam, and as unlike
those who check for themselves they believe every word of it and vote
accordingly. The fact keeping interest rates low for instance is
actually for the banks and government's personal benefits, as only
they really pay the base rate while the people pay whatever the banks
want to charge regardless, traders can borrow short term and make
huge bets and the small profit made in a day or two will be massively
increased on a few million or more of someone else's money. The added
bonus of low interest rates is it both devalues currency and as a
result sends investors to commodities, artificially forcing up prices
from gold to food to oil. So basically everyone suffers except those
manipulating the market.
There's no need
for it to happen at all now in any way, not now the internet is here
as the media is everyone who chooses to use it. Everyone can now be
an insider, the magic circle is blown and anyone who wants to see how
they do it can. Using Goebbels' rules, and simple methods of hypnosis
using repetition until a meaningless word or phrase becomes part of
the language, as if asked most people would discover it's impossible
to explain what it means, they have cult-style programmed the mass of
the population to use their ow invented (and utterly empty) words and
phrases of 'green jobs', 'sustainability', 'clean energy', 'carbon
footprint' and any other carefully thought up neologism that either
changes the meaning of existing words (eg sustainability) or makes up
entirely new ones (carbon footprint) but makes people imagine they do
mean something absolutely vital to change a problem that never
existed and they know it. And so do I. The climate and wind turbines
can both be measured adequately to test, and freely available online.
But if Al Gore and James Hansen tell you to expect metres of sea
level rise (note, in the future, which no one can predict outside a
linear system) people accept it. The actual sea level rise was 8
inches for a few centuries and heading for about the same already, as
driven by half heat expansion and half melting land ice, so you would
need a fairly substantial rise in temperature for more. At least 2C,
probably 3 according to the UN. So as temperatures are rising under
0.5C a century of course a greater sea level rise would be
impossible. Unlike future modelling present measuring is relatively
direct, and any other figures they throw at you will either need to
be consistent with the greater (deduction) or be wrong.
Follow the money
This can tie up
the most concrete data which anyone can easily follow, and if a
politician for example makes a law which takes money from taxes to
make a 525% guaranteed profit renting land for wind farms then if
their families and pension funds all rush to do so then the fact they
made the law they are personally benefitting from then in any other
circumstances it would be considered insider trading and market
manipulation, which in many areas are against the law. Of course a
good tyrant or dictator is above the law, either by owning the police
and armed forces so they can do what they like, or in the west they
simply change the law to make what they want to do legal for them.
Therefore although Enron were convicted of fraud for inventing energy
credits based on nothing and trading fresh air for years before
someone picked it up, they simply legalised it as carbon trading, as
Ken Lay of Enron briefed President Clinton and VP Gore before it hit
the fan. Al Gore pays vast carbon credits, but to his own company and
became a billionaire as a result. All the banks such as Rothschild's
are only too pleased to be able to cash in on trading an asset they
don't own, can't see or touch, and can't deliver as it makes their
business a lot easier, especially when half the countries put a floor
price on it guaranteeing the value can't drop below a certain amount.
That sure makes trading a lot more predictable, more so as it's not
actually optional (like wind and solar, as who would use them if not
paid to?) but compulsory in most countries who use it so the citizens
are forced to pay for them by law.
Such principles, such as the
grant and promotion trail and vast excess profits through restricting
fossil fuel production, as it means oil is suddenly forced way up
above market price through again what is standard market
manipulation, using fixed demand for an essential commodity and
raising the price so people spend less on luxuries to pay to survive.
Not illegal but thoroughly immoral, and incredibly profitable, as by
selling the identical amounts of fuel they get a few times as much
money for the same assets as the supply has been restricted. The
Environmental Protection Agency in America alone has refused so much
oil drilling and exploration they have doubled the prices there and
typical of operations worldwide. The BBC have admitted telling the
staff a few years ago not to go heavy on the balance on global
warming as the science is settled, and then the director of the
pension fund invested huge amounts in a company called the
Institutional
Investors Group on Climate Change, which is managed by Peter
Dunscombe, who also works for the BBC pension fund.
Yes, climate
change is a profit making business. Who'd have thought it? So of
course, Mr Dunscombe wouldn't want the world's largest media
corporation to wreck their own pension investments and his own main
source of income. Those examples come thick and fast wherever you
look in the current situation. This is just a few examples of how the
whole system operates, and I have many pages of details linked to
this general summary.
Beating the system
Knowledge is
power. Repetition, using their own principles of PR against them is
the key. Just as they invent meaningless phrases and have children
mindlessly parroting carbon footprints whenever their parents turn a
light on we can learn the good stuff and repeat that, as I say, until
the Club of Rome and Ottmar Edenhoffer become as familiar as Princess
Diana. That is the task required, and not by any means a tough one.
Replace the disinformation with information. Take the truth out of
the shadows and into the open. People will learn, spread, and when
enough know the reality it won't be possible to maintain the
illusion. Ron Paul, Nigel Farage, Peter Lilley, Robert Halfon, these
politicians prove by dismissing the current nonsense they are the
small minority not in on it. President Obama has not made a single
speech I've listened to without mentioning 'clean energy' regardless
of the topic involved. He could make a speech wishing his VP a happy
birthday and still have to get it in. Basically once you've learnt
the phrases only an insider would use, if someone uses it don't trust
them. As these buzzwords really only exist at all to manipulate, no
politician uses them unless they're trying to do so. When Fukushima
melted down I was waiting for President Obama to pay them a personal
visit to see how clean the radiation really was, but he never did it.
But he still talks a good talk.
There is a
single model which is near enough to allow everyone to understand the
current system, which is the mafia. A highly organised and connected
criminal organisation, above and outside the law, and maintaining
their power through the combined sticks and carrots of bribery and
threats. That's all you need to know, as they can only operate in a
country where the authorities are involved, or they'd wipe them out.
In 2011 the mafia became the largest industry in Italy with 7% of the
GDP, something absolutely impossible if not part of the system rather
than outside it. A clean government will always keep a clean house. I
will finally list a few items which are screaming exposures of the
system I want everyone singing like the national anthem. UN Agenda 21
for sustainability, which is operated locally through the ICLEI. That
means when your council stop emptying the weekly rubbish and the
government restrict new reservoirs they're operating it directly.
It's published online, as are all the Club of Rome reports, and not
by the media who could, but the conspiracy theory that really exists
is why would they shun such a fantastic story with perfectly
verifiable sources? Ottmar Edenhofer, the IPCC head of economics
admitted it all in a 2010 interview, saying
"...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..."
Now this is pretty direct and unequivocal, and most people hearing this direct from the organ grinder, the main man himself, would be hard pushed not to take it pretty seriously and literally. That is if anyone besides the German newspaper who interviewed him had shared it with anyone. But it's online and he's said it, and I'm telling you as no one else has. It's no longer a theory or an informed guess, we have been told many times (see my main site http://understandingfraud.blogspot.com ) and again using the power of constant repetition make these quotes as familiar as Princess Diana or the X Factor. Then their days of power will be over. There will simply be no illusion left to maintain. I hope this summary shows how the interconnected network work together like a smoothly running machine, and I have left no gaps in the picture (all details are supplied as above), and simply hand it all over for everyone to make up their own minds, based on the facts presented. There is no speculation here, everything is taken from published and tested reports, and once you see the big picture how it all fits together, any new information is clear as to where it goes or has come from. Everyone needs to know, and when enough do it will no longer be possible to continue.
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
Climate feedback undone
I am not a scientist but am asking them to fill in the specifics while my O level physics tells me enough already to only need the specifics filled in while the generals already seem more than enough to finish the theory off. I will update it as the figures are provided.
The theory is so simple yet so apparently wrong. Firstly, conservation of energy. The input from the sun never changes outside its own variations. There is a limit to the amount of heat 'generated' by holding what goes in and stopping it from coming out. Surely this alone creates huge warning bells as the moon, with no effective atmosphere, can reach 100F at the equator simply by absorbing the heat by convection. Not turning as our planet does it is daytime the whole time and a good control sample of the temperature on a body without a greenhouse effect. Climatologists appear to have forgotten what I could call the 'direct heating effect', one we also share here every single day before the sun goes down.
Secondly, there is simply no known example in past records where a rise in temperature from all causes creates a corresponding rise in water vapour, which then produces a feedback loop. In fact this relies on a massive dwell time for water vapour (answers needed here), and apparently ignores the actual water cycle where the water evaporates, forms clouds and then falls back as rain. So in reality we already know the routine where from all evaporating sea a proportion dwells as water vapour (how much and how long for?) while the rest falls back as rain.
Thirdly what does water vapour make? Clouds. One of the greatest causes of negative feedback. Stormy weather involves warming of the sea, the fast evaporation causing storm clouds, and within an hour or so (the observable dwell time and cycle by anyone on a hot day) falls back as a storm. How much of a not 1C but maybe 10C rise stays up there while the rest falls back almost immediately in climate terms? And the usual slow version produces white fluffy clouds which before they rain (if they do) block out the sun and reflect the heat back to space, as negative feedback. Current research admits the lack of knowledge on cloud formation from evaporation so pretty much a wild card, yet Hansen acts as if it doesn't exist (try measuring the temperature in the shade compared to the sun, that is wilful blindness to the extreme).
On top of this, Hansen's theory relies on the sea storing heat and having some sort of as yet unknown delay mechanism stopping it from releasing it as it is gradually heated by what he thought would be global warming. Simply watching puddles after a storm gradually evaporating shows that if a body of water evaporates evenly over an observable period that is what it always does. The sea hasn't changed its physical properties over a certain area, and he hasn't actually tried to claim it has, but the storage effect he claims implies just that, and could still be used as the final excuse why no feedback has ever been observed over 150 years. Also there was never a delay built in to his predictions. The feedback was supposed to be steady, following standard Newtonian laws of heat transferring from a warmer body (the sea) to a cooler one (the air) until an equilibrium was reached. Therefore any delay breaches any of Newton's laws you care to mention.
The knowns here appear to have already sewn up Hansen's theory. He has a PhD, not in climatology but computer modelling (much in the realm of astrology), and has cobbled this simplistic childlike view and convinced the world's powers it is 99% accurate although my O level physics and a little further research makes it look virtually impossible. The small amount of water vapour from a 1C rise can be measured roughly (help please!) and then fed into the water cycle to use the known amounts of returning rain and remaining vapour to pretty well work out the total feedback if any. The cloud cover is only likely to cancel the mechanism altogether, and observation shows with the 50% rise of CO2 the IPCC assign half the 0.8C to that, the rest being natural. Any CO2 greenhouse effect has clearly not just found no feedback but a slightly negative one, yet the authorities are acting as though current observations mean nothing while Hansen's goldmine is the one everyone has accepted unchallenged.
I will add this particular colon also has an appendix, something possibly added in desperation in case more people realise the first theory (literally) holds no water. The idea that methane stored in polar ice will be released when it melts, thus adding a far more powerful greenhouse gas, is also so different from the truth it bears no merit on close scrutiny. Methane is quite unlike CO2. It is not measured in parts per million, but parts per billion. Unlike CO2 it is pretty quick to react with oxygen, releasing CO2 (so little as not to be significant) and water. That is why there is so little in the atmosphere, as however fast the relatively minuscule amounts are released, the air simply mops most of it up. However, the second part of the theory relies on melting ice at unprecedented rates. Melting ice requires higher temperatures, not vice versa, and without a significant rise (2-3C according to the IPCC) it won't be happening in our lifetimes or our childrens' (again, the IPCC are looking to around 2100 and that is only their personal computer model, the actual results so far are well below it since the early 1990s). So the methane is truly a red herring anyone seriously involved with science should steer well clear of.
Update, the 2013 IPCC report has now removed the threat from methane.
The feedback loop invented by James Hansen, which forms around 90% of the basis of climate policy (without it the temperature could not rise more than 2C in maybe 300 years, which is just not a problem) appears to have no historic precedent. It suggests evaporating sea water from a higher temperature (ie one so slight no one except the odd satellite could notice, and even then often with adjustments) would remain in the atmosphere, cause more heat, causing yet more evaporation, ad infinitum.
The theory is so simple yet so apparently wrong. Firstly, conservation of energy. The input from the sun never changes outside its own variations. There is a limit to the amount of heat 'generated' by holding what goes in and stopping it from coming out. Surely this alone creates huge warning bells as the moon, with no effective atmosphere, can reach 100F at the equator simply by absorbing the heat by convection. Not turning as our planet does it is daytime the whole time and a good control sample of the temperature on a body without a greenhouse effect. Climatologists appear to have forgotten what I could call the 'direct heating effect', one we also share here every single day before the sun goes down.
Secondly, there is simply no known example in past records where a rise in temperature from all causes creates a corresponding rise in water vapour, which then produces a feedback loop. In fact this relies on a massive dwell time for water vapour (answers needed here), and apparently ignores the actual water cycle where the water evaporates, forms clouds and then falls back as rain. So in reality we already know the routine where from all evaporating sea a proportion dwells as water vapour (how much and how long for?) while the rest falls back as rain.
Thirdly what does water vapour make? Clouds. One of the greatest causes of negative feedback. Stormy weather involves warming of the sea, the fast evaporation causing storm clouds, and within an hour or so (the observable dwell time and cycle by anyone on a hot day) falls back as a storm. How much of a not 1C but maybe 10C rise stays up there while the rest falls back almost immediately in climate terms? And the usual slow version produces white fluffy clouds which before they rain (if they do) block out the sun and reflect the heat back to space, as negative feedback. Current research admits the lack of knowledge on cloud formation from evaporation so pretty much a wild card, yet Hansen acts as if it doesn't exist (try measuring the temperature in the shade compared to the sun, that is wilful blindness to the extreme).
On top of this, Hansen's theory relies on the sea storing heat and having some sort of as yet unknown delay mechanism stopping it from releasing it as it is gradually heated by what he thought would be global warming. Simply watching puddles after a storm gradually evaporating shows that if a body of water evaporates evenly over an observable period that is what it always does. The sea hasn't changed its physical properties over a certain area, and he hasn't actually tried to claim it has, but the storage effect he claims implies just that, and could still be used as the final excuse why no feedback has ever been observed over 150 years. Also there was never a delay built in to his predictions. The feedback was supposed to be steady, following standard Newtonian laws of heat transferring from a warmer body (the sea) to a cooler one (the air) until an equilibrium was reached. Therefore any delay breaches any of Newton's laws you care to mention.
The knowns here appear to have already sewn up Hansen's theory. He has a PhD, not in climatology but computer modelling (much in the realm of astrology), and has cobbled this simplistic childlike view and convinced the world's powers it is 99% accurate although my O level physics and a little further research makes it look virtually impossible. The small amount of water vapour from a 1C rise can be measured roughly (help please!) and then fed into the water cycle to use the known amounts of returning rain and remaining vapour to pretty well work out the total feedback if any. The cloud cover is only likely to cancel the mechanism altogether, and observation shows with the 50% rise of CO2 the IPCC assign half the 0.8C to that, the rest being natural. Any CO2 greenhouse effect has clearly not just found no feedback but a slightly negative one, yet the authorities are acting as though current observations mean nothing while Hansen's goldmine is the one everyone has accepted unchallenged.
I will add this particular colon also has an appendix, something possibly added in desperation in case more people realise the first theory (literally) holds no water. The idea that methane stored in polar ice will be released when it melts, thus adding a far more powerful greenhouse gas, is also so different from the truth it bears no merit on close scrutiny. Methane is quite unlike CO2. It is not measured in parts per million, but parts per billion. Unlike CO2 it is pretty quick to react with oxygen, releasing CO2 (so little as not to be significant) and water. That is why there is so little in the atmosphere, as however fast the relatively minuscule amounts are released, the air simply mops most of it up. However, the second part of the theory relies on melting ice at unprecedented rates. Melting ice requires higher temperatures, not vice versa, and without a significant rise (2-3C according to the IPCC) it won't be happening in our lifetimes or our childrens' (again, the IPCC are looking to around 2100 and that is only their personal computer model, the actual results so far are well below it since the early 1990s). So the methane is truly a red herring anyone seriously involved with science should steer well clear of.
Update, the 2013 IPCC report has now removed the threat from methane.
Thursday, 2 February 2012
Global warming- the conspiracy uncovered
Al Gore was originally fascinated by his lecturer (while doing an arts degree at Harvard, he was poor at science and only took the course due to the American system of minor subjects) Roger Revelle's personal theory that this may be possible and happening, and like a man falls in love instantly across a crowded room, Al took this to his heart and although the late Mr Revelle changed his mind on retirement and told anyone who would listen that he was wrong, it was too late. Al had fallen, and dismissed Revelle as being senile.
To follow Gore to the present, as he joined the parallel bandwagon around the early 90s or before so became the mouthpiece of the movement worldwide, his main interest in global warming was not the environment, but a financial one. His film 'An Inconvenient Truth' was found to have at least ten 'material errors' (ie lies) in a British civil court, and was only the alarmist advertisement for his financial concerns. Right at the beginning, he worked out there was a vast source of profit from this assertion, and worked with Ken Lay, before the collapse of his Enron company, on how best to go about this route. Enron later collapsed after being found to have invented both profits and products, basically paper energy notes based on the collection of non-existent future profits. This worked long enough to collect millions, and I do not know what happened to these after the trial, but can only presume they were not confiscated so the job was done.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/737753/posts
http://www.blurtdaily.com/2009/04/30/al-gore-and-enron/
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663
"In August 1997, Lay and Browne met with President Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore in the Oval Office to develop administration positions for the Kyoto negotiations that resulted in an international treaty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions."
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1185475433.pdf
http://www.climategate.com/enron-helped-develop-carbon-trading-scheme
Rather than dying with the company, Enron energy credits were reborn, now legally with UN/IPCC assent as carbon credits, buying something that does not belong to the seller, cannot be delivered and conveys no actual benefit. This is the perfect crime. In addition to creating a fictional exchange system Al didn't stop there, but set up his own company, to which he now pays his own massive credits into, as well as collecting from others. This has made him from a millionaire to a billionaire so clearly works. The compliance from the authorities has been to let carbon trading and credits work on voluntary regulation so there is (as in 2011) no contract or guarantee as to where your money goes. I have since discovered Enron itself was set up as a merger between two energy companies, and the individual behind it was the notorious junk bond crook, Michael Milken.
Rather than dying with the company, Enron energy credits were reborn, now legally with UN/IPCC assent as carbon credits, buying something that does not belong to the seller, cannot be delivered and conveys no actual benefit. This is the perfect crime. In addition to creating a fictional exchange system Al didn't stop there, but set up his own company, to which he now pays his own massive credits into, as well as collecting from others. This has made him from a millionaire to a billionaire so clearly works. The compliance from the authorities has been to let carbon trading and credits work on voluntary regulation so there is (as in 2011) no contract or guarantee as to where your money goes. I have since discovered Enron itself was set up as a merger between two energy companies, and the individual behind it was the notorious junk bond crook, Michael Milken.
The second limb of the conspiracy is that carbon trading, as opposed to credits, is like car insurance in a growing number of countries. It is not something you risk as a seasoned investor (as did the customers of Bernie Madoff who wasn't sanctioned by the UN) but are forced to do by law if your country legislates for it. A win-win situation for the traders.
And of course it comes as no surprise the investors are many of the very politicians who set it up and make their profits from compulsory taxes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gore dealt with, there is a collective conspiracy not even needing a hacker to discover as with Climategate, although there is a connection between the two I will mention soon. The 1991 report The First Global Revolution, of the Club of Rome, an international policy group manned by some of the most powerful people in the world, openly stated:
“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."
"Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe."
http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
"In 1990, writes veteran reporter Jim Tucker, the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. “Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13088153/Club-of-Rome-The-First-Global-Revolution
Here are some more quotes from the above link:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Gore dealt with, there is a collective conspiracy not even needing a hacker to discover as with Climategate, although there is a connection between the two I will mention soon. The 1991 report The First Global Revolution, of the Club of Rome, an international policy group manned by some of the most powerful people in the world, openly stated:
“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."
"Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe."
http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
"In 1990, writes veteran reporter Jim Tucker, the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. “Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.”
The following year, the Club of Rome think tank published The First Global Revolution, a book suggesting a draconian neo-Malthusianism approach will solve the world’s “problems”, in fact a problem the global elite has with humanity."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13088153/Club-of-Rome-The-First-Global-Revolution
Here are some more quotes from the above link:
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, 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
The names here met back in 1971 to set this up, James Lovelock John Holdren, Stephen Schneider and other familiar names to those who have read the history of the development and whenever I find a meeting planning the details another turns up even earlier. Maybe another will now before these.
1971 conference Limits To Growth; 1975 the “Endangered Atmosphere”
http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/11/29/1975-endangered-atmosphere-conference-where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/
"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"
"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"
Video here http://www.youtube.com/user/satguru?feature=mhee#p/a/f/0/pQAc8RteZT4
Their previous report from the 70s was indeed an extremely sensible one, published as a book, to keep world population stable, and received virtually no publicity and absolutely no policy changes, remaining to this day a framework to manage the world's real elephant in the room which is a definite threat as unlike our temperatures it is already spiralling out of control. But their second try, possibly as there is a huge opportunity for financial gain from it rather than simply conserving the planet, was a raving success. Mikail Gorbachev joined the team on retirement from Soviet affairs, as an expert in such areas of oppressing the masses, and in 1996 restated their position:
"The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order"
The Wildlands Project http://www.libertymatters.org/ahri-wildlands-rpt.htm
"The environmental issue will bring far more people into the communist movement than peace ever did" Karl Blau, assistant to Mikhail Gorbachev
Of course, if you're going to con the public, you have to find something with all the required criteria. It firstly and most of all must be something they can't see or measure for themselves. Climate is the perfect example. Then add the fear factor- imagine the Sahara Desert, transfer that to Paris or Watford, and the pinch of supernatural to finish it off: In 2100 it could be over 6C higher than it is now. Yes, and it could also be 6C colder, both are almost impossible due to the previous records, but it doesn't matter as none of us will actually be there to ever see it, you must trust us. And they nearly all do.
So it is not 'Why would there be a conspiracy, who would profit?' or 'Show me a conspiracy' but 'Here's the conspiracy'. Just because getting all the pieces of the jigsaw isn't as easy as watching a scary movie, it is both possible and completed. It won't be shown by the BBC or many other outlets however, as the BBC are now working for the enemy. As I suspected long before it was discovered that carbon trading was no 'like Enron' but was Enron, it was pretty obvious, as well as being confirmed by Peter Sissons, Johnny Ball and David Bellamy, who among others fell foul of their one sided policy, breached their charter by acting as a mouthpiece for an organisation set up to spread the message, Globe International. As the BBC are supposed to be balanced and independent, not in theory but by law, acting for a group who have a single agenda is not within their charter, their argument presumably being as long as they are not being paid to do so then it is fine, is hardly convincing. And to tie up another loose end, an officer of Globe International is Lord Roxborough, the very head of the enquiry who found the CRU at East Anglia University not guilty in the climategate enquiry.This is not just a conflict of interests, but as such legally Ultra Vires. That is a decision where there is the chance of a conflict of interests, whether or not it exists, is void ab initio under equity law. So technically as someone on a board specifically to support the work of the CRU, the main supplier of IPCC figures, is not qualified to judge them when they screw up, that exoneration never existed and must have another enquiry with a new head. as if they would.
I am personally a great fan of Buddhism, although know little about the Dalai Lama assumed he was working both for them and Tibet, until he recently made a speech about global warming being a major threat. Guess who he works for, yes, he's in the Club of Rome. They've even bagged a religious leader. Without a forensic accountant and a warrant I can't state the exact investments of all its members along with Globe International, but public shareholder records are not secret and David Cameron, along with other cabinet members and their families, have all got large investments in the very 'green energy' projects they have legislated to subsidies with our taxes. Not an illegal conflict of interests but still wrong. And remember black Monday, when the British economy lost billions in a single day due to speculation crashing the pound when it joined the ERM? The main player (again, simply playing the system as we all can if have enough to risk on it) was George Soros, who recently joined the campaign and invested vast sums himself in wind and solar power. Just look what happened to his last investment to see the likely results.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/carrie-spurgeon/hows-this-for-conflicts-of-interest-guys-how-both-the-met-and-the-bbc-are-playin/10150624666950262
And it now turns out climate change has become an official international business, the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change is managed by Peter Dunscombe and does exactly what it says on the tin, makes people rich from climate change. Get rid of the story and the money goes away with it. Our money that is. http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/the-times-cant-see-the-dead-wood-for-the-trees/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Another group arose recently, one I'd previously never come across and had a sole website dating to 1998. The Club of the Isles is an organisation loosely managed around the international royal family and related aristocracy (there is only one big family as they keep the bloodline throughout history by intermarriage) and it's nominal head is no other than Prince Philip, who set up the World Wildlife fund as a vehicle for carrying out its agenda, roughly reducing the population of the world to 1 billion. How they intend to do this is debatable, but the terms 'useless eaters', the non-aristocrats and plebs, and the view humans are a cancer on the earth, much promoted since by James Lovelock and George Monbiot, and the driving force behind Greenpeace appears to have its roots right there.
"Going green" is nothing more than an excuse to destroy civilization and depopulate the planet because they consider us all a bunch of "useless eaters."
"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
"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/fallhous.htm
" 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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
Despite open and less open statements and acts being revealed, I still find a blank response by believers who would rather trust data than the people who generated it, in an interview just before the Cancun Summit in 2010, a top IPCC officer, Ottmar Edenhofer, was interviewed and simply stated:
"...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..."
Despite this being able to stand alone, the background and history is essential to see to show Edenhofer is not speaking as a rogue individual (despite representing one of the most powerful groups on earth) but simply stating what has always been. Why he chose to 'come out' as he did remains uncertain, but around a year later can say this was not read beyond the internet, and there was absolutely no reaction among the believers, just as if Santa had dropped his beard and shown to be your father yet you still put the stocking out every following year. That is a human failing rather than a failing of the evidence, as pride and kudos will blind most people to actual facts, especially combined with the most powerful evil of all, fear, and not just for yourself (as we'll be ok) but your unborn grandchildren. But remove the mist of emotion and greed and these are the facts, take them or leave them.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Another group arose recently, one I'd previously never come across and had a sole website dating to 1998. The Club of the Isles is an organisation loosely managed around the international royal family and related aristocracy (there is only one big family as they keep the bloodline throughout history by intermarriage) and it's nominal head is no other than Prince Philip, who set up the World Wildlife fund as a vehicle for carrying out its agenda, roughly reducing the population of the world to 1 billion. How they intend to do this is debatable, but the terms 'useless eaters', the non-aristocrats and plebs, and the view humans are a cancer on the earth, much promoted since by James Lovelock and George Monbiot, and the driving force behind Greenpeace appears to have its roots right there.
"Going green" is nothing more than an excuse to destroy civilization and depopulate the planet because they consider us all a bunch of "useless eaters."
"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
"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/fallhous.htm
" 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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
Despite open and less open statements and acts being revealed, I still find a blank response by believers who would rather trust data than the people who generated it, in an interview just before the Cancun Summit in 2010, a top IPCC officer, Ottmar Edenhofer, was interviewed and simply stated:
"...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..."
Despite this being able to stand alone, the background and history is essential to see to show Edenhofer is not speaking as a rogue individual (despite representing one of the most powerful groups on earth) but simply stating what has always been. Why he chose to 'come out' as he did remains uncertain, but around a year later can say this was not read beyond the internet, and there was absolutely no reaction among the believers, just as if Santa had dropped his beard and shown to be your father yet you still put the stocking out every following year. That is a human failing rather than a failing of the evidence, as pride and kudos will blind most people to actual facts, especially combined with the most powerful evil of all, fear, and not just for yourself (as we'll be ok) but your unborn grandchildren. But remove the mist of emotion and greed and these are the facts, take them or leave them.
There is also, along with the long planned world government, the associated world currency. But who would accept that? A few extremists and crooks who know how to fix or milk a market, but tell them it's to save the planet and they cave in. Carbon credits are not for business, that is the trial period, the plan is to be for everyone. Energy rationing first, followed by currency rationing. Wealth will disappear overnight, as unlike conventional currency, carbon credits will (and already do) last a year. So even if you start getting ten times more than average, at the end of the year they expire. And who decides what you get the following years? Search me. They don't actually care, they will give you what they want to at the time.
http://green-agenda.com/carboncurrency.html
Full details here, from the source
If drawn as a spider's web going downwards with time, you can see a general birth around 1990, as I can't say exactly who decided the Club of Rome decision (although its members are known and the report is all online as linked here). Don't be diverted by trees in the wood looking for individual motives and actions, they are all the fruit of a single tree, a decision to invent a problem to create a reaction and then offer the pre-written solution we would never have accepted had there not been a problem, much like losing our liberty for security after 9/11, something Benjamin Franklin said over 100 years earlier, whoever does this deserves neither. It's an old trick and one despite being exposed time after time will always succeed as long as people trust those in authority. Once those at the top go bad, it is very difficult for those lower down not to follow or lose their children's school fees. Even the most honest and genuine scientists don't want to go bankrupt as those mortgages have to be paid and won't be if they are ostracised from the profession as a handful such as David Bellamy already claim to have been. The reason 'senile' (to quote Al Gore) ex-professors have always been the most vociferous opponents of global warming is they have nothing to lose. Think about it.
Full details here, from the source
If drawn as a spider's web going downwards with time, you can see a general birth around 1990, as I can't say exactly who decided the Club of Rome decision (although its members are known and the report is all online as linked here). Don't be diverted by trees in the wood looking for individual motives and actions, they are all the fruit of a single tree, a decision to invent a problem to create a reaction and then offer the pre-written solution we would never have accepted had there not been a problem, much like losing our liberty for security after 9/11, something Benjamin Franklin said over 100 years earlier, whoever does this deserves neither. It's an old trick and one despite being exposed time after time will always succeed as long as people trust those in authority. Once those at the top go bad, it is very difficult for those lower down not to follow or lose their children's school fees. Even the most honest and genuine scientists don't want to go bankrupt as those mortgages have to be paid and won't be if they are ostracised from the profession as a handful such as David Bellamy already claim to have been. The reason 'senile' (to quote Al Gore) ex-professors have always been the most vociferous opponents of global warming is they have nothing to lose. Think about it.
More confessions: Direct from the CRU, used in the graphs sent to the IPCC to make world policy.
"plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."
" Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline"
"-- Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"
" Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"
http://www.seomoves.org/the-internet-is-all-over-climategate-while-the-msm-sleeps_id207.html
James Hansen, the one who gave the speech to US congress back in 1988 which led to the creation of the IPCC, has been caught tweaking so much data (with no consequences) that he now deserves a growing column here to himself. After filling in missing temperature data where there were no measurements around the world with red instead of the average temperature which is the only (and I mean only) way to do it, he actually created 75% of the result by making it up as the real data was only a quarter of that in the total. He has now gone a step further not by adding wrong figures but removing them. This is arguably worse as if the world is now cooling then by pretending it isn't the policies will continue unabated, despite the fact the real figures are now diverging further and further from the models. How long can it take before some independent authorities are able to call the data into question and put him in front of a court to explain himself. If these allegations are correct he is not just lying to the world but putting his whole profession in jeopardy both by collusion (the peer review process is clearly absent here as everyone in the know can see exactly what he's done on both occasions (and how many more?) yet sat on their hands and whistled. That shows a degree of agreement which has to go way above the climate community and to the very top of the tree.
http://www.real-science.com/hansen-tampering-data-planet ie Hansen is probably not doing this for his own reasons, but as he is being ordered to. Clearly that is not done for nothing, so must be a secondary gain, but a scientist of his standing to openly flout the law on more than one occasion and gain full immunity from consequences is clearly a 'made man', one who has risen so high he is free to make the rules for himself. In a civilised society there is no place for made men. They are from the mafia and we do not want them to spread into our governments and academic institutions.
James Hansen, the one who gave the speech to US congress back in 1988 which led to the creation of the IPCC, has been caught tweaking so much data (with no consequences) that he now deserves a growing column here to himself. After filling in missing temperature data where there were no measurements around the world with red instead of the average temperature which is the only (and I mean only) way to do it, he actually created 75% of the result by making it up as the real data was only a quarter of that in the total. He has now gone a step further not by adding wrong figures but removing them. This is arguably worse as if the world is now cooling then by pretending it isn't the policies will continue unabated, despite the fact the real figures are now diverging further and further from the models. How long can it take before some independent authorities are able to call the data into question and put him in front of a court to explain himself. If these allegations are correct he is not just lying to the world but putting his whole profession in jeopardy both by collusion (the peer review process is clearly absent here as everyone in the know can see exactly what he's done on both occasions (and how many more?) yet sat on their hands and whistled. That shows a degree of agreement which has to go way above the climate community and to the very top of the tree.
http://www.real-science.com/hansen-tampering-data-planet ie Hansen is probably not doing this for his own reasons, but as he is being ordered to. Clearly that is not done for nothing, so must be a secondary gain, but a scientist of his standing to openly flout the law on more than one occasion and gain full immunity from consequences is clearly a 'made man', one who has risen so high he is free to make the rules for himself. In a civilised society there is no place for made men. They are from the mafia and we do not want them to spread into our governments and academic institutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS
James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too. As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” --Ian Johnston,MSNBC, 23 April 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The big oil myth
Anyone who says big oil funds skeptical propaganda doesn't know economics. Restricting supply raises prices plus free carbon credits are giving them subsidised windfalls. They also invest and develop alternatives- wind, solar and biofuel, as they are also subsidised so again give them our tax money as guaranteed profits. So all green measures help the fossil fuel industry as it doesn't stop them selling it but allows them to at higher prices, and they are quite free to diversify as they always have. In fact I just discovered the CRU, the global warming engine of propaganda, is funded by many of the biggest names in said industry. They don't invest a single penny in a losing cause.
"The UN panel’s members include billionaire globalist George Soros, who has been calling for a carbon tax for years. Soros has $811 million of his own money invested in Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company."
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order)
British Council,
British Petroleum,
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre,
Central Electricity Generating Board,
Centre for Environment,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS),
Commercial Union,
Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU),
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC),
Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA),
Department of Health,
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI),
Eastern Electricity,
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),
Environment Agency,
Forestry Commission,
Greenpeace International,
International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED),
Irish Electricity Supply Board,
KFA Germany,
Leverhulme Trust (Trust was originally endowed with a shareholding in Lever Brothers, which subsequently became part of Unilever.)
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF),
National Power,
National Rivers Authority,
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC),
Norwich Union,
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
Overseas Development Administration (ODA),
Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates,
Royal Society,
Scientific Consultants, (?)
Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC),
Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research,
Shell,
Stockholm Environment Agency,
Tate and Lyle,
UK Met. Office,
UK Nirex Ltd., (UK based ‘independent’ ‘radioactive waste’ management consultants.)
United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP),
United States Department of Energy,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Wolfson Foundation and the
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).
© David Howard November 2011
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)