Whatever came first or followed is not important, but the easiest model by far to understand world government cooperation, from the UN to local councils and everywhere in between, is the structure of the mafia. The three weapons, already discussed, are sticks, carrots and silence. The sticks and carrots, threats and bribes are fairly self evident, but the silence on the surface may be, but goes so deep to the roots of the human soul itself, it needs its own analysis.
Nearly all criminal structures involving a group have a pyramid structure, of a few dirty sods running the show, some thick arses second in command taking orders, like the concentration camp guards, and the thick bottom of unwilling but passive followers. The most important element they provide is maintaining silence. Bernie Madoff and Enron had offices full of staff, many who joined thinking they were genuine outfits (Enron was until they got into trouble and tried to 'fix it'), discovered the truth sooner or later, and (as demonstrated by the many years of successful trading before accidentally being found out for both companies) at the very most may have dropped the odd hint to the authorities anonymously which were never enough to find anything incriminating.
There are many elements of illusion and diversion, as all magicians know and exploit for entertainment only, and a branch of the same elements of mental weakness as silence are false threats. The EU is a wonderful example of making up impossible to qualify statements which enough people accept as they are offered with authority. The standard list of consequences the insiders roll out in opposition to any challenges a country would be better off out are so vague and empty any child studying economics or history could see through them in moments if it was part of their current work, but they successfully convince any waverers throughout the community, including the many whose countries lose billions a year as a direct result of membership, so every single claim is void as besides the equally empty absence of a European war (as we go to war with countries outside Europe instead who are even worse than the current generation of Germans, most of the time anyway) the figures speak for themselves. So ignorance is a feature of the power used to exploit the public, as even when a claim is as easy to refute as taking your socks off and counting your toes, the general public can't be arsed to take a single extra step to question authority so blindly accept it if it needs one or more.
Similar threats drive the silence, as whisteblowers throughout history have generally tended to end up with their severed heads on poles or at the bed of a river than the tiny remainder as heroes such as Silkwood, although many still go through hell and severe persecution, before the few left finally win their cases and get media exposure. People go to work to support themselves and usually their families, so there is a lot at stake for almost certainly losing your job before anything more sinister is considered. But that culture of silence, that which allowed the IRA to operate for decades as they'd shoot the kneecaps of any informers, and the mafia who will not just kill the informer but their families as well, is only watered down in lower levels of violence but equal in criminality. It is impossible for a fraud to be discovered a decade or more afterwards (23 years in the case of the Hillsborough police rewriting witness statements) without a collective acceptance of protecting the wrongdoers rather than risk any retribution. The methods to enforce the silence vary from those already mentioned, threatening witnesses, saying nothing but being such an absolute bastard it's not worth the risk of crossing them, and basically anything which tips the balance between doing the right thing and avoiding trouble. The empty threat method however actually applies to the vast majority of organisations in reality, as the only difference between the others and the real mafia is very few would dream of using violence or even the standard political fare of smear campaigns. But when ordinary law abiding people discover they are working for crooks they don't see shades of grey but instantly think of The Godfather and besides the valiant few, many of whom are actually dismissed by the authorities so arguably they are either involved or immune as well, assume their lives are at risk, or their incomes at least, so join the dark side. Passive acceptance of crimes is no different in effect to carrying out the actual hits, especially when you consider the mafia themselves tend to delegate the actual murders to others, but in a conspiracy everyone is judged equally.
But as always in these lessons, knowing the methods are sufficient to avoid them entirely. Unless you find you are working for the mafia or IRA then there'll never be a single reason to shut the hell up, as that job you're doing which turns out to be based on stealing lead from old people's rooves and stealing their jewellery when you ask to use their phone or toilet, isn't going to last that long anyway as crooks running any kind of business tend to stop when they reach the target and pack up before their luck runs out. In fact only by the lower staff keeping quiet when a single tipoff could close the place down, protect many victims and probably get a reward, people only think of the negatives which in fact only tend to happen in Italy or the rougher cities of America. Otherwise in the west at least the police tend to be only involved in a small minority running protection rackets and payoffs for drug gangs to operate their patch, and almost always at the lower levels, so absolutely no excuse not to do so. Temptation is another non-religious situation described in the bible, and these temptations of originally decent people will dirty their souls until they repent and come back to the good side.
Saturday, 30 March 2013
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
Renewable subsidies go to oil companies
One of the major causes of fraud is people not looking beyond the surface. The poor sheep who keep bleating every part of climate scepticism is 'funded by big oil' have never done a single piece of research, and are just repeating what more intelligent crooks have said to them. In fact big oil is 'big energy' and they promote climate research and propaganda as it gives them massive guaranteed profits for no actual energy production. Who needs oil when you can get the money directly from the taxpayers? http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidies/index.htm
We are now all criminals.
If I said to you the government could make you and I criminals as proxies for what large corporations did in the past you'd say I was a fucking lunatic.
RBS fixed Libor for ages, when finally discovered they were only given a civil demand for compensation in the UK (I think a fine can only be for a crime), and as 81% nationalised guess who's paid it? Yes, we the taxpayers. You couldn't make it up better than this.
If you extend this to the next level if any of the staff were to be found guilty of crimes they could convict random citizens instead as we are now legally responsible for their PAST actions, as this has set a precedent. Don't rely on me, check out the law of precedent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9853088/RBS-Libor-fine-what-the-authorities-said.html
The mafia couldn't have done it any better, pay a corrupt company for ripping off its customers, and when they then get busted for cheating (but avoid criminal charges as the system was already fixed) and fined then because they've been temporarily nationalised guess who pays the fine? The taxpayer.
Now this is a precedent. If the public can be made to pay someone else's fine from something which happened before they were responsible for it, they have changed the legal principles in a number of fundamental ways. Firstly till now it was impossible to be responsible for something which has been backdated. If you change the law to create a responsibility today for any act in civil or criminal law (such as paying for bank fraud) it can only apply to acts committed after the date of that decision. Here the people are paying for something which was carried out for over a decade before it was even discovered, and by sheer chance (ie in normal circumstances the entire issue would have remained 'in house') because the public now own most of RBS, they have become entirely responsible for their actions, past and present. Not content with changing the meaning of marriage (not fraud but tyranny) David Cameron's reign has now rewritten the law to allow (like Jesus in fact) the public to take on the responsibility for others' civil (and potentially criminal, as in every other field the Libor fixing would be obtaining financial benefit by deception under the Theft Act) wrongs, potentially opening the door (with no rewriting of a single statute as using common law principles) to any other example in the future. In theory, should this not be seen as a single act of phenomenal theft (the British public are paying the lion's share of someone else's £392 million fine), which in itself is an incredible act of robbery, but without a successful legal challenge (I see none, not even an attempted challenge) will in future be able to nationalise any company they like and make us pay for any act they have previously committed forever.
Of course in the case of RBS it could be argued that when the government kindly paid their executives not to lose their jobs and bonuses (they did not reduce when taken over) in exchange for limited temporary management privileges, they also took on their debts. Of course taking on the debts of a massive private company as a government is sheer lunacy already, but when these then include legal obligations through fraud, the general public have literally become responsible for someone else's criminal acts. I say acts, not crimes, as rigging interest rates has become decriminalised, where altering the market to remove money from investors only becomes a civil wrong when carried out by banks. Yes, that was exactly what happened, as with carbon trading, which before Bill Clinton and Al Gore's activities were imitated worldwide, were actually both criminal and applied to companies at all levels, as the Enron board went down for a long time for doing it. But here for reasons only known by the government and associated lawyers, who declared to the press the day Libor fixing went public, 'This is not actually a crime'. I haven't seen the legislation but must exist otherwise the claim couldn't have lasted more than a day or two before some lawyer spotted it.
Meanwhile George Osborne says that the taxpayer will not pay any of the fine owed by the 81% public owned bank, presumably taking it out of the remainder and making sure the accounts do not cross over. Apparently. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9852260/RBS-traders-tried-to-fly-above-law-as-taxpayer-owned-bank-hit-with-392m-fine.html
However, on the legal side, RBS (for doing exactly the same thing) have been convicted of a crime in Japan, and had a suspended sentence in the US, withholding actual prosecution if they don't do anything like it in future. That's OK then.
RBS fixed Libor for ages, when finally discovered they were only given a civil demand for compensation in the UK (I think a fine can only be for a crime), and as 81% nationalised guess who's paid it? Yes, we the taxpayers. You couldn't make it up better than this.
If you extend this to the next level if any of the staff were to be found guilty of crimes they could convict random citizens instead as we are now legally responsible for their PAST actions, as this has set a precedent. Don't rely on me, check out the law of precedent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9853088/RBS-Libor-fine-what-the-authorities-said.html
The mafia couldn't have done it any better, pay a corrupt company for ripping off its customers, and when they then get busted for cheating (but avoid criminal charges as the system was already fixed) and fined then because they've been temporarily nationalised guess who pays the fine? The taxpayer.
Now this is a precedent. If the public can be made to pay someone else's fine from something which happened before they were responsible for it, they have changed the legal principles in a number of fundamental ways. Firstly till now it was impossible to be responsible for something which has been backdated. If you change the law to create a responsibility today for any act in civil or criminal law (such as paying for bank fraud) it can only apply to acts committed after the date of that decision. Here the people are paying for something which was carried out for over a decade before it was even discovered, and by sheer chance (ie in normal circumstances the entire issue would have remained 'in house') because the public now own most of RBS, they have become entirely responsible for their actions, past and present. Not content with changing the meaning of marriage (not fraud but tyranny) David Cameron's reign has now rewritten the law to allow (like Jesus in fact) the public to take on the responsibility for others' civil (and potentially criminal, as in every other field the Libor fixing would be obtaining financial benefit by deception under the Theft Act) wrongs, potentially opening the door (with no rewriting of a single statute as using common law principles) to any other example in the future. In theory, should this not be seen as a single act of phenomenal theft (the British public are paying the lion's share of someone else's £392 million fine), which in itself is an incredible act of robbery, but without a successful legal challenge (I see none, not even an attempted challenge) will in future be able to nationalise any company they like and make us pay for any act they have previously committed forever.
Of course in the case of RBS it could be argued that when the government kindly paid their executives not to lose their jobs and bonuses (they did not reduce when taken over) in exchange for limited temporary management privileges, they also took on their debts. Of course taking on the debts of a massive private company as a government is sheer lunacy already, but when these then include legal obligations through fraud, the general public have literally become responsible for someone else's criminal acts. I say acts, not crimes, as rigging interest rates has become decriminalised, where altering the market to remove money from investors only becomes a civil wrong when carried out by banks. Yes, that was exactly what happened, as with carbon trading, which before Bill Clinton and Al Gore's activities were imitated worldwide, were actually both criminal and applied to companies at all levels, as the Enron board went down for a long time for doing it. But here for reasons only known by the government and associated lawyers, who declared to the press the day Libor fixing went public, 'This is not actually a crime'. I haven't seen the legislation but must exist otherwise the claim couldn't have lasted more than a day or two before some lawyer spotted it.
Meanwhile George Osborne says that the taxpayer will not pay any of the fine owed by the 81% public owned bank, presumably taking it out of the remainder and making sure the accounts do not cross over. Apparently. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9852260/RBS-traders-tried-to-fly-above-law-as-taxpayer-owned-bank-hit-with-392m-fine.html
However, on the legal side, RBS (for doing exactly the same thing) have been convicted of a crime in Japan, and had a suspended sentence in the US, withholding actual prosecution if they don't do anything like it in future. That's OK then.
Friday, 1 February 2013
Climate PR methods exposed
Thanks to gatekeeper2 for this which I have pasted over:
Here’s a few examples (from memory, the BEST report does not comment on the presentation in any depth but does mention possible exaggeration of the human element.
A few of the deceptive politicised rules of the climate cabal in exaggerating warming and hiding the decline, apart from the obvious attempts to discredit the opposition scientists:
1) Use the words, “The Planet has been Warming.” Avoid mentioning the fact that this warming is barely detectable at about 0.07 deg C per decade averaged over the entire 20th century but only 0.05 per decade for the immediately past decade.
2) Avoid scales which show too much detail and use convenient markers (vertical green bars) starting on a low and ending on a high.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
3) State Sea levels are rising but avoid that on average this is around just 1 inch per decade and has been for some time (a little less recently)
4) Avoid close-ups of the post 1995 period. If forced to show something on this, avoid all averaging lines or markers that would highlight the flat lining or the marginal downward line since 2002.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
5) Concentrate on absolutes, such as the first decade of the 21st century is the warmest in the past 100 years but ignore step trend change that places it on a plateaux during this period with marginal cooling.
6) Never show the erratic global temperature profile on the same chart as the steady tight sinusoidal increase CO2 profile such as is shown by sceptics on the Friends of Science website.
7) Cherry pick timeframes that can adopt the years of strong warming occurring between 1970 and 2000 to project back to years before and on into the 21st century to exacerbate apparent warming in what were in fact cooling and flat-lining years.
8) Terminology: change the language so that the term global warming or climate change are automatically attributed falsely with the invisible ‘catastrophic’ and ‘man-made’ labels.
9) Instead of sceptics, use the word deniers to falsely and evilly imply holocaust deniers.
Here’s a few examples (from memory, the BEST report does not comment on the presentation in any depth but does mention possible exaggeration of the human element.
A few of the deceptive politicised rules of the climate cabal in exaggerating warming and hiding the decline, apart from the obvious attempts to discredit the opposition scientists:
1) Use the words, “The Planet has been Warming.” Avoid mentioning the fact that this warming is barely detectable at about 0.07 deg C per decade averaged over the entire 20th century but only 0.05 per decade for the immediately past decade.
2) Avoid scales which show too much detail and use convenient markers (vertical green bars) starting on a low and ending on a high.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
3) State Sea levels are rising but avoid that on average this is around just 1 inch per decade and has been for some time (a little less recently)
4) Avoid close-ups of the post 1995 period. If forced to show something on this, avoid all averaging lines or markers that would highlight the flat lining or the marginal downward line since 2002.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
5) Concentrate on absolutes, such as the first decade of the 21st century is the warmest in the past 100 years but ignore step trend change that places it on a plateaux during this period with marginal cooling.
6) Never show the erratic global temperature profile on the same chart as the steady tight sinusoidal increase CO2 profile such as is shown by sceptics on the Friends of Science website.
7) Cherry pick timeframes that can adopt the years of strong warming occurring between 1970 and 2000 to project back to years before and on into the 21st century to exacerbate apparent warming in what were in fact cooling and flat-lining years.
8) Terminology: change the language so that the term global warming or climate change are automatically attributed falsely with the invisible ‘catastrophic’ and ‘man-made’ labels.
9) Instead of sceptics, use the word deniers to falsely and evilly imply holocaust deniers.
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
Fraud for one, fraud for all
Lance Armstrong's belated confession stands as
a perfect example not of a confession, but how long he managed to
continue (about 15 years) without failing a SINGLE drug test, not by
being clean but by cheating the tests as well as the races.
This type of performance can ONLY happen where an entire group is corrupt, from the TOP downwards, as 'rogue individuals' nearly always get busted, prosecuted and held up as an example outside their company or profession. But in cycling and banking (I have enough evidence on both of those at the very least) the rogue individuals are the honest ones. There is not a single reason to cheat or join the crooks as a new and innocent arrival, but they nearly all did, and if a single person genuinely thinks one profession has 'more crooks' than others that is exactly why they get away with it so long, as YOU believe say, scientists are generally far more trustworthy than politicians or estate agents.
How the bloody hell do you know that? Does someone studying science need to have an ethics test before they are accepted as well as good A levels? Are somehow technically minded people more pure of heart than those in business? NO!!! People are people first, and the law of averages sorts the good, bad and indifferent virtually exactly evenly EVERYWHERE, whatever the destination they are virtually the same mix.
Therefore if one particular area becomes poisoned, then whether they are the small group of leaders or large group of silent followers who know exactly what happens and keeps them protected by keeping quiet, they have gone bad. Libor, Hillsbrough, Enron, Bernie Madoff, all appeared above suspicion, so the longer they stayed in business the more money or avoidance of prosecution could continue. Lance Armstrong was not a rogue individual, he was just the most successful cheat in history in a profession of other cheats. Now we know this please accept this can and does happen in every possible profession, the signs are the same for all, I spent many years learning them and if everyone else does they will get stopped before they have cleared up and screwed us all in the process. Knowledge is the only requirement to undo every single one.
This type of performance can ONLY happen where an entire group is corrupt, from the TOP downwards, as 'rogue individuals' nearly always get busted, prosecuted and held up as an example outside their company or profession. But in cycling and banking (I have enough evidence on both of those at the very least) the rogue individuals are the honest ones. There is not a single reason to cheat or join the crooks as a new and innocent arrival, but they nearly all did, and if a single person genuinely thinks one profession has 'more crooks' than others that is exactly why they get away with it so long, as YOU believe say, scientists are generally far more trustworthy than politicians or estate agents.
How the bloody hell do you know that? Does someone studying science need to have an ethics test before they are accepted as well as good A levels? Are somehow technically minded people more pure of heart than those in business? NO!!! People are people first, and the law of averages sorts the good, bad and indifferent virtually exactly evenly EVERYWHERE, whatever the destination they are virtually the same mix.
Therefore if one particular area becomes poisoned, then whether they are the small group of leaders or large group of silent followers who know exactly what happens and keeps them protected by keeping quiet, they have gone bad. Libor, Hillsbrough, Enron, Bernie Madoff, all appeared above suspicion, so the longer they stayed in business the more money or avoidance of prosecution could continue. Lance Armstrong was not a rogue individual, he was just the most successful cheat in history in a profession of other cheats. Now we know this please accept this can and does happen in every possible profession, the signs are the same for all, I spent many years learning them and if everyone else does they will get stopped before they have cleared up and screwed us all in the process. Knowledge is the only requirement to undo every single one.
Wednesday, 16 January 2013
Basic temperature rise for doublings of CO2
Temp rise from 1850 C'
With no positive feedback, double CO2 and add a degree C. In 2013 CO2 has increased 50% since 1850, temperature has risen around 0.7C on a rising trend, and even if all down to CO2 double that and you get a barely noticeable 1.5C at 520ppm. But if you can squeeze 1.5C at 520ppm, you would need 1040ppm for 2C plus any feedback, and 2080 for 3C etc. There isn't even enough fossil fuel available to burn that much to raise temperatures past anywhere near the IPCC 'danger level', the experiment for the feedback is already half run and by their own figures, they attribute only 0.4C to the added CO2, meaning this graph is actually reading higher than reality so far. How many activists or the general public realise even if CO2 reaches 520ppm, once there it would be almost impossible to gain much more heat as the return would reduce so much the emissions would not be able to keep up. The IPCC don't mention that but it is first year stuff for the scientists.
Friday, 11 January 2013
Mass hysteria, you ain't seen nothing yet
Throughout history the medically recognised phenomenon of mass hysteria has broken out in larger and smaller examples, the greatest known probably being the Salem witch trials. The common elements are a group possession of a psychotic delusion, which all within believe to be genuine while all unaffected can see the same way as with an individual's psychotic ramblings. Religion may be argued as another example as if you remove the source as Jesus or Moses many of the claims would also be considered equal nonsense, but for this piece religion is used solely to demonstrate the psychological mechanisms involved.
Up till the 1990s, there was no known non-religious example which was not either local or small scale and short lived. But with the effort of Al Gore who with James Hansen made a speech to Congress to the tune that by 2100 we'd all die of heatstroke unless we stopped burning fossil fuels, even though at the time the temperature had only risen around half a degree in over a century, they managed to convince the majority of the world this was true, despite it breaking every single rule of logic and evidence, namely:
Temperature rise. Whether or not the temperatures were accurate or complete, even their worst case scenario of 0.7C in 150 years around the turn of the century was normally something insignificant. But because CO2 had risen in the same period by 50% you had an unknown entered into the atmosphere, one which those capable could claim more or less whatever they wanted as long as they had the required status. Then they shifted from the meagre temperature rises, as although CO2 appeared to have shot up (although only measured at one point on the planet) the actual present effects were very close to the 1C expected by doubling. My original thought was 'doubling from what point?', but it's not a linear doubling but a logarithmic one, ie each doubling is half as powerful as the last, fast becoming infinitesimal in response to impossible potential octupling or so. So we have a lab/paper figure of doubling adding 1C, borne out perfectly by the 0.7 rise less natural causes at 50%.
However, breaking the rules of reality and crossing over into end times and Revelations, they switched from logic and science to Nostradamus and astrology. If CO2 rises to 560ppm by 2100 the temperature could rise up to 6C (but most likely 2-3C). This was despite the foreseen water vapour being evaporated to cause more humidity and amplify the warming, which as no built in delay went into the equation, has not happened half way through the experiment. So take away today's lack of news, and direct people's attention to a puzzle with no solution, as back in the 90s only a few people born around that time would be alive to see it in 2100. 2050, the new 2100, is little different as none of the existing scientists will be under 80 when it comes along, and if they really think it's reasonable to wait till most observers are dead to even get a clue of the end result they should be retired and left to grass.
Sea level rise: Global warming (you know, that cause which was the driver of the effect of climate change) requires (according to the UN) a rise of 2C before any negative overall results kick in, till then the overall obvious results (just like the results of an ice age are obvious, even those living near the equator can probably find a chest freezer somewhere they can stand by for a bit to get the feel) of greater food production and fewer overall deaths from cold are possibly overturned by whatever (unknown) disadvantages could be. I say unknown as history isn't quite sure about temperatures before 1850 as no one measured them enough to know till then. But we do know it was warmer in Roman times and biblical as it's agreed in general, and there were no reports of climate wars or mass extinctions they'd like us to. So the sea level rise is only an effect of a vastly rising temperature, as sea records are far easier to look back on as the shells on dry land show it was once covered by sea, and they can all be carbon dated. Half sea level rise is from thermal expansion, and half is from melting polar land ice. Last century the sea rose 7 inches (which even the Pacific islanders were directly unaware of unless they looked it up) with a temperature rise of around half a degree, and in 2013 the little percentage of the new century we've passed is consistent with that, especially considering the the temperature settled down just before 2000 so how could the sea rise faster? Therefore James Hansen's claims of a metre, or metres by 2100 is impossible. Not impossible just to know either way, but would require a known volume of sea to expand and ice to melt, which (someone can help me as it's not my bag) requires from my basic enquiries around 6C. Given the known drivers and progress of the existing CO2/temperature line, sea level has to follow as entirely linked and dependent on temperature to rise.
So, given the two extremely simple criteria, temperature and sea level past, present and future, and timescales presented for the future and equations for CO2/temperature relationships compared with results, what would a child think? Of course a child who wasn't taught Al Gore's national curriculum, but one independent of any prior persuasion.If I had the time and resources I'd draw up a paper test and get a few hundred children to take it, but gentlemen of the jury, given the situation, you easily have the means to put yourself in such a position and make a perfectly adequate estimation.
Believing an experiment half run (50% CO2 rise) could still suddenly turn the other way, creating a rise at least if not above the highest estimated possible temperature of the UN, which given just the most basics of science could see the drivers of such a rise would be physically impossible unless naturally coming out of an ice age, is a symptom of temporary mental inadequacy. Mass persuasion, hysteria, brainwashing, exploitation and selective reporting has created what is the greatest level of mass delusion ever. Unfortunately within the literature there is no clue as to how to dismantle the problem, as each went away on its own. Sufferers are the mental patients or drunks at the party while the immune recessive minority are the visitors or sober ones. If anyone's attempted to use their logic and awareness of reality to a schizophrenic patient they will know the two cannot meet, and this is what we're up against here until something happens to either break it suddenly (only such major new data or one of the authority figures changing the message) or gradually, which will then take decades of flat or falling temperatures to leave all but the irrelevant minority behind. Of course every day it continues we are all losing money and freedom, Paris and London have banned certain older vehicles already from entering, and this is just the start of such measures including David Miliband's wish for a personal energy ration, only put on hold as he lost the last election. Not to mention the 3,000 people dying every winter in Britain from hypothermia since energy prices were raised too high for them to afford.
Unfortunately whichever way you play it out this mass hysteria is gradually becoming mass murder, while vast amounts of food crops are being burnt as biofuel, reducing the availability in the third world and raising the price in the developed world. Waiting 30 years for the facts to overtake the lunacy will hurt far too many people and by then the damage will all be done.
10 examples of mass hysteria
Up till the 1990s, there was no known non-religious example which was not either local or small scale and short lived. But with the effort of Al Gore who with James Hansen made a speech to Congress to the tune that by 2100 we'd all die of heatstroke unless we stopped burning fossil fuels, even though at the time the temperature had only risen around half a degree in over a century, they managed to convince the majority of the world this was true, despite it breaking every single rule of logic and evidence, namely:
Temperature rise. Whether or not the temperatures were accurate or complete, even their worst case scenario of 0.7C in 150 years around the turn of the century was normally something insignificant. But because CO2 had risen in the same period by 50% you had an unknown entered into the atmosphere, one which those capable could claim more or less whatever they wanted as long as they had the required status. Then they shifted from the meagre temperature rises, as although CO2 appeared to have shot up (although only measured at one point on the planet) the actual present effects were very close to the 1C expected by doubling. My original thought was 'doubling from what point?', but it's not a linear doubling but a logarithmic one, ie each doubling is half as powerful as the last, fast becoming infinitesimal in response to impossible potential octupling or so. So we have a lab/paper figure of doubling adding 1C, borne out perfectly by the 0.7 rise less natural causes at 50%.
However, breaking the rules of reality and crossing over into end times and Revelations, they switched from logic and science to Nostradamus and astrology. If CO2 rises to 560ppm by 2100 the temperature could rise up to 6C (but most likely 2-3C). This was despite the foreseen water vapour being evaporated to cause more humidity and amplify the warming, which as no built in delay went into the equation, has not happened half way through the experiment. So take away today's lack of news, and direct people's attention to a puzzle with no solution, as back in the 90s only a few people born around that time would be alive to see it in 2100. 2050, the new 2100, is little different as none of the existing scientists will be under 80 when it comes along, and if they really think it's reasonable to wait till most observers are dead to even get a clue of the end result they should be retired and left to grass.
Sea level rise: Global warming (you know, that cause which was the driver of the effect of climate change) requires (according to the UN) a rise of 2C before any negative overall results kick in, till then the overall obvious results (just like the results of an ice age are obvious, even those living near the equator can probably find a chest freezer somewhere they can stand by for a bit to get the feel) of greater food production and fewer overall deaths from cold are possibly overturned by whatever (unknown) disadvantages could be. I say unknown as history isn't quite sure about temperatures before 1850 as no one measured them enough to know till then. But we do know it was warmer in Roman times and biblical as it's agreed in general, and there were no reports of climate wars or mass extinctions they'd like us to. So the sea level rise is only an effect of a vastly rising temperature, as sea records are far easier to look back on as the shells on dry land show it was once covered by sea, and they can all be carbon dated. Half sea level rise is from thermal expansion, and half is from melting polar land ice. Last century the sea rose 7 inches (which even the Pacific islanders were directly unaware of unless they looked it up) with a temperature rise of around half a degree, and in 2013 the little percentage of the new century we've passed is consistent with that, especially considering the the temperature settled down just before 2000 so how could the sea rise faster? Therefore James Hansen's claims of a metre, or metres by 2100 is impossible. Not impossible just to know either way, but would require a known volume of sea to expand and ice to melt, which (someone can help me as it's not my bag) requires from my basic enquiries around 6C. Given the known drivers and progress of the existing CO2/temperature line, sea level has to follow as entirely linked and dependent on temperature to rise.
So, given the two extremely simple criteria, temperature and sea level past, present and future, and timescales presented for the future and equations for CO2/temperature relationships compared with results, what would a child think? Of course a child who wasn't taught Al Gore's national curriculum, but one independent of any prior persuasion.If I had the time and resources I'd draw up a paper test and get a few hundred children to take it, but gentlemen of the jury, given the situation, you easily have the means to put yourself in such a position and make a perfectly adequate estimation.
Believing an experiment half run (50% CO2 rise) could still suddenly turn the other way, creating a rise at least if not above the highest estimated possible temperature of the UN, which given just the most basics of science could see the drivers of such a rise would be physically impossible unless naturally coming out of an ice age, is a symptom of temporary mental inadequacy. Mass persuasion, hysteria, brainwashing, exploitation and selective reporting has created what is the greatest level of mass delusion ever. Unfortunately within the literature there is no clue as to how to dismantle the problem, as each went away on its own. Sufferers are the mental patients or drunks at the party while the immune recessive minority are the visitors or sober ones. If anyone's attempted to use their logic and awareness of reality to a schizophrenic patient they will know the two cannot meet, and this is what we're up against here until something happens to either break it suddenly (only such major new data or one of the authority figures changing the message) or gradually, which will then take decades of flat or falling temperatures to leave all but the irrelevant minority behind. Of course every day it continues we are all losing money and freedom, Paris and London have banned certain older vehicles already from entering, and this is just the start of such measures including David Miliband's wish for a personal energy ration, only put on hold as he lost the last election. Not to mention the 3,000 people dying every winter in Britain from hypothermia since energy prices were raised too high for them to afford.
Unfortunately whichever way you play it out this mass hysteria is gradually becoming mass murder, while vast amounts of food crops are being burnt as biofuel, reducing the availability in the third world and raising the price in the developed world. Waiting 30 years for the facts to overtake the lunacy will hurt far too many people and by then the damage will all be done.
10 examples of mass hysteria
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)