It's been hot recently and not just here in the UK. So the Global Warming leeches come slithering out to say it is extreme (it isn't), it's due to Global Warming (it isn't), which is caused by Man pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (or Carbon as 'scientists' insist on calling it. Carbon is an element, C, and Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is a compound. They confuse the two because they think Carbon sounds worse to you. And they know you are thick, because you believe in Global Warming even though they can't prove it).
I mentioned in an earlier post what is causing our current weather and that, by observation, we can see there is no Global Warming taking place. Now, let's be clear Global Warming as a natural, cyclical event is real. It is warmer now than when the Thames froze over in 1814, but less warm than in medieval or Roman times.
Also, CO2 is a potential 'greenhouse' gas, meaning it can help trap heat inside the atmosphere and thus warm the planet. This was first postulated in the 1960's and after research it was decided that Man's output of CO2 is insignificant in the grand scheme of things and will have no noticeable affect on climate. We have no idea what might be a 'tipping point', as temperatures have been much lower at times when atmospheric CO2 was very much higher.
We don't know how all the interlocking natural relationships work to respond to changes. But greenhouse gas is a sound theory. More effective than CO2 is Methane and by far the most causative of weather and climate variations is water vapour. Or clouds as we more commonly refer to them.
So, if the theory is sound but we don't understand the mechanisms and interactions sufficiently, how is Global Warming a thing? Why are governments so stressed about it and reactive? (To be fair all government has actually done is increase taxes on us to give to rich people as subsidies for wind farms and solar farms that don't really help much and not all the time).
Global Warming is being used by anti-capitalists to get idiot Western governments to ruin their economies chasing a chimera and by scientists and activists (like Greenpeace and WWF) to get grants and funding. No Global Warming, no money.
How do the scammers have all this proof of Global Warming then? Well, they don't. Most stories they tell are demonstrable lies which the lazy MSM journalists just cut and paste. Any refutation is ignored by the media. The 'proof' the pushers produce is completely, 100% based on computer models that they programmed with biased inputs and consequently always predict Global Warming.
The models are predicated on CO2 having an influence way out of kilter with observable fact and beyond anything we have direct knowledge of. You might as well believe in fairies.
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Monday, 30 July 2018
Water, Water - Nowhere
With a prolonged hot, dry spell visiting the UK recently the focus has been on Global Warming. There have been no records broken, it hasn't been as unendingly hot as 1976 and this one (as most are here), was caused by the Jetstream being pushed North by unusually cold water in the North West Atlantic.
Nothing to do with Global Warming, which isn't a thing with no temperature rise for over 20 years and certainly no identified mechanism at work, caused by Man (such as CO2).
What should be the focus is the water supply. Now, with a wet early start to the year the supplies were at a high level, but nothing lasts forever. But more damaging is the fact that, despite the massive influx of people to the UK since the moron Tony Blair allowed unrestricted immigration, no new capacity exists.
Yes, that's right, no new reservoirs to meet the additional needs. Mad eh? Well the reason is even more insane. Following an EU directive we must have less water supply than is needed by design. This is to make us use less water, which we must do due to Global Warming (which as stated earlier doesn't exist).
So, you may be familiar with the population increase, in the late Eighties it was 56,953,861 and is now 65,511,097 but when was the last reservoir built? 1989, that's when. In Devon. Unbelievably, no added capacity from before unlimited immigration began.
And then there are the legendary scale water leaks, which the water companies really cannot be bothered to fix despite legal obligations and targets. This is because our politicians, currently scrabbling to keep all the real work of governing in Brussels, are weak and believe in fairies, which is what Global Warming is.
Nothing to do with Global Warming, which isn't a thing with no temperature rise for over 20 years and certainly no identified mechanism at work, caused by Man (such as CO2).
What should be the focus is the water supply. Now, with a wet early start to the year the supplies were at a high level, but nothing lasts forever. But more damaging is the fact that, despite the massive influx of people to the UK since the moron Tony Blair allowed unrestricted immigration, no new capacity exists.
Yes, that's right, no new reservoirs to meet the additional needs. Mad eh? Well the reason is even more insane. Following an EU directive we must have less water supply than is needed by design. This is to make us use less water, which we must do due to Global Warming (which as stated earlier doesn't exist).
So, you may be familiar with the population increase, in the late Eighties it was 56,953,861 and is now 65,511,097 but when was the last reservoir built? 1989, that's when. In Devon. Unbelievably, no added capacity from before unlimited immigration began.
And then there are the legendary scale water leaks, which the water companies really cannot be bothered to fix despite legal obligations and targets. This is because our politicians, currently scrabbling to keep all the real work of governing in Brussels, are weak and believe in fairies, which is what Global Warming is.
Wednesday, 28 February 2018
The Left vs Civilization
It is interesting, I think, in light of Jeremy Cobyn's current twists and turns to get himself into a position to wreck the economy of at least one hated capitalist country, that others of a seemingly lighter touch on the Left did so much more damage.
You will remember when Bill Clinton was the US President and Al Gore his side-kick, or Vice. Bill of course, insisted that banks gave loans to poor people to buy houses they couldn't afford. And in obeying his law he initiated the global economic crisis.
Al had his own plan to destroy Western capitalism (except he actually just used it, to make himself richer). He latched on to the Groupthink project of Global Warming and, as the accomplished snake-oil salesman he is, he spouted utter nonsense which resulted in governments pumping money in to carbon reduction projects and renewable energy.
By pure coincidence, Al was invested in these sorts of projects and has done very well out of it. He is even responsible for the extortionate amount you pay on your energy bills today. To make a few rich people richer.
So yes Jeremy, you not only look, sound and act like a bumbling amateur revolutionary, but that is actually what you are.
You will remember when Bill Clinton was the US President and Al Gore his side-kick, or Vice. Bill of course, insisted that banks gave loans to poor people to buy houses they couldn't afford. And in obeying his law he initiated the global economic crisis.
Al had his own plan to destroy Western capitalism (except he actually just used it, to make himself richer). He latched on to the Groupthink project of Global Warming and, as the accomplished snake-oil salesman he is, he spouted utter nonsense which resulted in governments pumping money in to carbon reduction projects and renewable energy.
By pure coincidence, Al was invested in these sorts of projects and has done very well out of it. He is even responsible for the extortionate amount you pay on your energy bills today. To make a few rich people richer.
So yes Jeremy, you not only look, sound and act like a bumbling amateur revolutionary, but that is actually what you are.
Wednesday, 9 August 2017
What's Wrong? I'll Tell You
It does say on this blog that it is personal opinion. Good, that's that covered now to press on.
We find ourselves in all sorts of bad places at the moment, kind of forming a single feeling of, well being in a bad place. You know, education doesn't seem to be working, immigration seems a problem but you don't want to sound horrible, hospitals can't cope apparently, politicians are in their own little world, which is not what you imagined they were for and then there's the news.
How can all this be happening? All at once. Well your culpability is that you weren't paying attention. Now, whilst some of it was intended to evade your notice, the glaringly obvious also slipped by. Hello? Tony Blair? Really, you elected him? And then did it again? How many clues do you need? No wonder the actual problem went undetected!
On healthcare; basically a good idea run by the wrong people. The NHS 'free at the point of delivery' is just like any other insurance paid for scheme, but is run by a state bureaucracy. Time and again these are proven to be the worst people to allow to run anything. Soldiers achieve great things on battlefields, doctors and nurses do great things on the front line, but take a step back and the managers, the MOD are a shambles of incompetence, entitlement and waste.
Doctors and nurses are not coming out of this as unmitigated heroes though. Nurses used to do the basic tasks on wards, which were clean, functional and caring places. Now nurses don't receive training, they are educated, to degree level. This new understanding of their own importance means they no longer concern themselves with menial tasks and assistants have had to be hired to do those jobs. Wards are now dirty with poor standards of actual care.
When you go in to hospital, you are an inconvenience, you mess with their numbers. Cost them money. So you are allocated a number and processed through the system, with everyone focussed on maximising the efficiency of the system, to please managers and bureaucrats. You are no longer a patient with an ailment, you are a form, to be processed. You might get what you need quickly enough and you might not.
Complaints of course crop up, but the defence mechanism is continually oiled for this possibility. How dare you criticise doctors and nurses? Whatever went wrong, it will be cuts (if Tories are in power) or swept under the carpet if 'socialists' hold sway.
And there it is, the first mention of socialists. It isn't socialism that is the issue though. This thoroughly acceptable political thought process is not to blame as it hasn't been heard around here for a very long time. No, Marxism is what is at work. Gramsci and the long march through the institutions is at work.
Education is a good example of what is going on and it is of key interest to Marxists of course. You will hear from time to time bleatings about 'unqualified' teachers. This is usually about free schools, a recent introduction. And naturally, hearing that teachers are unqualified instantly makes you think they must be substandard. But do you ask what a qualified teacher is? No, you don't.
A 'qualified' teacher is one that has progressed through a Union run institution where they mainly receive left oriented political indoctrination. It is the reason almost every teacher sings the Red Flag (of communism) when a 'socialist' government is elected. It is why they go on strike and hate 'the Tories' It is why you hear of 'cuts' whether there are any or not.
For the Marxists, a poor education system that promotes left ideology is essential, firstly to help destabilise society, but also, when they win (Marxists deal in inevitabilities) they need a lumpen mass of proles to do the menial work, to do what they are told, to come to rely entirely on the state. And what are our educational establishments churning out? Functionally illiterate snowflakes, unable to discover facts, handle the truth or debate.
The same Marxist approach is happening of course, within the police, all state bureaucracies, the judiciary and not least the media. One particularly powerful weapon they deploy is Political Correctness. This is an immensely useful option as, whenever they don't have an answer, can't engage in debate (i.e. most of the time) they encourage the use of the phrase 'you can't say that'.
Things become unsayable, beyond the pale, not because they actually are, in a fair reasonable society, but because it serves Marxist ideology. You are 'not allowed' to talk about black on black crime, even though it is a very real problem and makes a misery of many lives.
For the Marxists you have to be stupid and believe amazing and ridiculous things. Hence, Corbyn isn't seen as dangerous, a hard core Marxist who would turn Britain into Venezuela in the blink of an eye, but as an alternative politician, in line with British tradition. What Marxists cannot achieve through violent revolution, by encouraging you to 'rise up' and put them in dictatorial power, they will get by other duplicitous means.
Let me show you how a cultural hysteria can be used to achieve ridiculous ends. The goal of Marxists is to overthrow the system that made the countries that adopted it wealthy, capitalism. Because of this success, this ability to enhance lives, capitalism has held Marxism in check. So it has to go. But how to get rid of it?
One way is to get the rich countries to spend all their money. But why would they do that and on what? War would not guarantee a good outcome for Marxists and it provides opportunities for capitalism. No, it had to be something fundamentally useless.
Then they had a brainwave, something that would undermine capitalism and show, most amusingly for them, just how stupid modern societies have become under their incessant, malign influence. They said you had to build weapons to defend against dragons. Or rather they said you had to spend enormous amounts of your wealth on combatting 'Global Warming'. This was your fault naturally, because in becoming wealthy through capitalist endeavour, you had damaged the planet.
So, it became fashionable to feel guilty and completely OK to pay for winds farms and solar panels, which are not actually fit for purpose. Some people got rich but most people were being robbed blind and that was the object. To waste money fighting a chimera. So old people die of cold due to fuel poverty, but that doesn't matter against the great scheme of achieving Marxist Utopia.
Are you stupid though? Is Climate Change or whatever the current vogue name is for the scam, not real? Yes, the climate changes, it always has. But we can't stop it and we are certainly not causing it. Oh and yes, it does seem likely you are stupid, because (for once perhaps) think; why would scientists tell you the science is settled, you are not allowed to debate climate change? The Scientific Method requires constant questioning, constant re-evaluation. It requires proof.
That is why you cannot challenge it. Because it is a tissue of lies. It is why they fiddle the temperature records, why they issue vicious attacks whenever a scientist questions the ideology. It is why there is never a debate on TV, why the BBC endlessly pumps out propaganda to support it. A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
So what is wrong with the world today? Simple. We have for too long not stood up against the creeping, malign undermining of decent, civilised society by dangerous, violent Marxists. Demand that the outcome of the education system is a clearly educated child, not happy Marxist inclined teachers, parroting tired, worthless ideology. Demand that common sense and long held laws and norms are returned.
Stand up for the things that work for you, capitalism and decent, civil society and destroy rampant Marxism. And along the way, we can pick up and make great use of a proper, socialist party in our midst. That would be something we have, perhaps never seen.
We find ourselves in all sorts of bad places at the moment, kind of forming a single feeling of, well being in a bad place. You know, education doesn't seem to be working, immigration seems a problem but you don't want to sound horrible, hospitals can't cope apparently, politicians are in their own little world, which is not what you imagined they were for and then there's the news.
How can all this be happening? All at once. Well your culpability is that you weren't paying attention. Now, whilst some of it was intended to evade your notice, the glaringly obvious also slipped by. Hello? Tony Blair? Really, you elected him? And then did it again? How many clues do you need? No wonder the actual problem went undetected!
On healthcare; basically a good idea run by the wrong people. The NHS 'free at the point of delivery' is just like any other insurance paid for scheme, but is run by a state bureaucracy. Time and again these are proven to be the worst people to allow to run anything. Soldiers achieve great things on battlefields, doctors and nurses do great things on the front line, but take a step back and the managers, the MOD are a shambles of incompetence, entitlement and waste.
Doctors and nurses are not coming out of this as unmitigated heroes though. Nurses used to do the basic tasks on wards, which were clean, functional and caring places. Now nurses don't receive training, they are educated, to degree level. This new understanding of their own importance means they no longer concern themselves with menial tasks and assistants have had to be hired to do those jobs. Wards are now dirty with poor standards of actual care.
When you go in to hospital, you are an inconvenience, you mess with their numbers. Cost them money. So you are allocated a number and processed through the system, with everyone focussed on maximising the efficiency of the system, to please managers and bureaucrats. You are no longer a patient with an ailment, you are a form, to be processed. You might get what you need quickly enough and you might not.
Complaints of course crop up, but the defence mechanism is continually oiled for this possibility. How dare you criticise doctors and nurses? Whatever went wrong, it will be cuts (if Tories are in power) or swept under the carpet if 'socialists' hold sway.
And there it is, the first mention of socialists. It isn't socialism that is the issue though. This thoroughly acceptable political thought process is not to blame as it hasn't been heard around here for a very long time. No, Marxism is what is at work. Gramsci and the long march through the institutions is at work.
Education is a good example of what is going on and it is of key interest to Marxists of course. You will hear from time to time bleatings about 'unqualified' teachers. This is usually about free schools, a recent introduction. And naturally, hearing that teachers are unqualified instantly makes you think they must be substandard. But do you ask what a qualified teacher is? No, you don't.
A 'qualified' teacher is one that has progressed through a Union run institution where they mainly receive left oriented political indoctrination. It is the reason almost every teacher sings the Red Flag (of communism) when a 'socialist' government is elected. It is why they go on strike and hate 'the Tories' It is why you hear of 'cuts' whether there are any or not.
For the Marxists, a poor education system that promotes left ideology is essential, firstly to help destabilise society, but also, when they win (Marxists deal in inevitabilities) they need a lumpen mass of proles to do the menial work, to do what they are told, to come to rely entirely on the state. And what are our educational establishments churning out? Functionally illiterate snowflakes, unable to discover facts, handle the truth or debate.
The same Marxist approach is happening of course, within the police, all state bureaucracies, the judiciary and not least the media. One particularly powerful weapon they deploy is Political Correctness. This is an immensely useful option as, whenever they don't have an answer, can't engage in debate (i.e. most of the time) they encourage the use of the phrase 'you can't say that'.
Things become unsayable, beyond the pale, not because they actually are, in a fair reasonable society, but because it serves Marxist ideology. You are 'not allowed' to talk about black on black crime, even though it is a very real problem and makes a misery of many lives.
For the Marxists you have to be stupid and believe amazing and ridiculous things. Hence, Corbyn isn't seen as dangerous, a hard core Marxist who would turn Britain into Venezuela in the blink of an eye, but as an alternative politician, in line with British tradition. What Marxists cannot achieve through violent revolution, by encouraging you to 'rise up' and put them in dictatorial power, they will get by other duplicitous means.
Let me show you how a cultural hysteria can be used to achieve ridiculous ends. The goal of Marxists is to overthrow the system that made the countries that adopted it wealthy, capitalism. Because of this success, this ability to enhance lives, capitalism has held Marxism in check. So it has to go. But how to get rid of it?
One way is to get the rich countries to spend all their money. But why would they do that and on what? War would not guarantee a good outcome for Marxists and it provides opportunities for capitalism. No, it had to be something fundamentally useless.
Then they had a brainwave, something that would undermine capitalism and show, most amusingly for them, just how stupid modern societies have become under their incessant, malign influence. They said you had to build weapons to defend against dragons. Or rather they said you had to spend enormous amounts of your wealth on combatting 'Global Warming'. This was your fault naturally, because in becoming wealthy through capitalist endeavour, you had damaged the planet.
So, it became fashionable to feel guilty and completely OK to pay for winds farms and solar panels, which are not actually fit for purpose. Some people got rich but most people were being robbed blind and that was the object. To waste money fighting a chimera. So old people die of cold due to fuel poverty, but that doesn't matter against the great scheme of achieving Marxist Utopia.
Are you stupid though? Is Climate Change or whatever the current vogue name is for the scam, not real? Yes, the climate changes, it always has. But we can't stop it and we are certainly not causing it. Oh and yes, it does seem likely you are stupid, because (for once perhaps) think; why would scientists tell you the science is settled, you are not allowed to debate climate change? The Scientific Method requires constant questioning, constant re-evaluation. It requires proof.
That is why you cannot challenge it. Because it is a tissue of lies. It is why they fiddle the temperature records, why they issue vicious attacks whenever a scientist questions the ideology. It is why there is never a debate on TV, why the BBC endlessly pumps out propaganda to support it. A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
So what is wrong with the world today? Simple. We have for too long not stood up against the creeping, malign undermining of decent, civilised society by dangerous, violent Marxists. Demand that the outcome of the education system is a clearly educated child, not happy Marxist inclined teachers, parroting tired, worthless ideology. Demand that common sense and long held laws and norms are returned.
Stand up for the things that work for you, capitalism and decent, civil society and destroy rampant Marxism. And along the way, we can pick up and make great use of a proper, socialist party in our midst. That would be something we have, perhaps never seen.
Friday, 2 June 2017
How Did We Get Here?
So Trump has left the meaningless jumble of countries signing that they may or may not reduce their CO2 output, for spurious and unsubstantiated reasons. Cue lots of wailing. Why? Why are we committed to Global Warming/Climate Change? Why mustn't it be debated? Why must the scientific method not be applied to climate change research?
Why don't people challenge these things? Well if you are a selfish idiot, the prerequisites for being a Marxist, then you will have to come up with a plan, a strategy to get your way (no one would vote for it, of course!)
First you need a wealthy, lazy, poorly-educated bloc. That would be the West then, with the poor education taken care of by Marxists infiltrating schools and introducing crackpot ideas of teaching that leaves children functionally illiterate. Tick.
Then, you need to come up with something big, something terrible, with a timescale to give it some immediacy. Something that can be portrayed as fashionable (hence of huge importance to the Rich, Wealthy, Dimwits), but that needs enormous amounts of money to 'cure'.
It is preferable that it is actually not true, in case it does get 'cured', or goes away of its own volition. Once a thing is fashionable, who is going to put down their Quinoa and say "the Emperor has no clothes"?
Man Made Global Warming! The idea that CO2 could cause a warming of the planet is rooted in sound science and if we were to output many hundreds of times what we are currently producing then, plausibly we could affect climate.
Modify the above though and say current levels are dangerous. Say that if we don't destroy our economies and stop driving cars, lorries, flying planes and making stuff, the world will fry. Governments will do what they always do and give some funds for people to find out this is true, which gets them and others, more funding.
And we are off! Now you have a client group who rely on finding a truth that doesn't exist. You don't get funds now, if you say it isn't so. And to protect their racket the funded tell the 'deniers' to go away, with limitless personal abuse and ridicule. You know, strong scientific argument.
This client group of Scientists-Who-Used-To-Have-Principles are the useful idiots who unbelievably keep the Marxist's quest alive for them by being the 'authority consensus'. Is it real? Ask a scientist! And the RWD's swallow it because they are not very bright, not used to discovering things, but they know what is fashionable and that's always more important.
And there you have it; the West is self harming, destroying its wealth and ability to continue by spending all its treasure chasing a chimera. To convince the pixies not to harm us - here be dragons!
Ironically, it is all hot air. If the Marxists and their useful idiots stop breathing there would be a) less plant food (CO2) and b) no one claiming that MMGW is real. Just a real scientific analysis that would say; why don't we try to develop technologies to stop us chucking all these various fumes into the air?
Pollution is an issue, and scant resource is being directed to changing it, mainly because of the mis-direction of Global Warming and partly because of the vested interest in the massive, worldwide infrastructure for obtaining, refining and selling oil based products.
Proper, well thought out technologies, not state subsidised moron fests like wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars. And we need to recognise Marxists for what they are, from the obviously aggressive to the smiling, soft spoken ne'er do wells like Jeremy Corbyn.
Why don't people challenge these things? Well if you are a selfish idiot, the prerequisites for being a Marxist, then you will have to come up with a plan, a strategy to get your way (no one would vote for it, of course!)
First you need a wealthy, lazy, poorly-educated bloc. That would be the West then, with the poor education taken care of by Marxists infiltrating schools and introducing crackpot ideas of teaching that leaves children functionally illiterate. Tick.
Then, you need to come up with something big, something terrible, with a timescale to give it some immediacy. Something that can be portrayed as fashionable (hence of huge importance to the Rich, Wealthy, Dimwits), but that needs enormous amounts of money to 'cure'.
It is preferable that it is actually not true, in case it does get 'cured', or goes away of its own volition. Once a thing is fashionable, who is going to put down their Quinoa and say "the Emperor has no clothes"?
Man Made Global Warming! The idea that CO2 could cause a warming of the planet is rooted in sound science and if we were to output many hundreds of times what we are currently producing then, plausibly we could affect climate.
Modify the above though and say current levels are dangerous. Say that if we don't destroy our economies and stop driving cars, lorries, flying planes and making stuff, the world will fry. Governments will do what they always do and give some funds for people to find out this is true, which gets them and others, more funding.
And we are off! Now you have a client group who rely on finding a truth that doesn't exist. You don't get funds now, if you say it isn't so. And to protect their racket the funded tell the 'deniers' to go away, with limitless personal abuse and ridicule. You know, strong scientific argument.
This client group of Scientists-Who-Used-To-Have-Principles are the useful idiots who unbelievably keep the Marxist's quest alive for them by being the 'authority consensus'. Is it real? Ask a scientist! And the RWD's swallow it because they are not very bright, not used to discovering things, but they know what is fashionable and that's always more important.
And there you have it; the West is self harming, destroying its wealth and ability to continue by spending all its treasure chasing a chimera. To convince the pixies not to harm us - here be dragons!
Ironically, it is all hot air. If the Marxists and their useful idiots stop breathing there would be a) less plant food (CO2) and b) no one claiming that MMGW is real. Just a real scientific analysis that would say; why don't we try to develop technologies to stop us chucking all these various fumes into the air?
Pollution is an issue, and scant resource is being directed to changing it, mainly because of the mis-direction of Global Warming and partly because of the vested interest in the massive, worldwide infrastructure for obtaining, refining and selling oil based products.
Proper, well thought out technologies, not state subsidised moron fests like wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars. And we need to recognise Marxists for what they are, from the obviously aggressive to the smiling, soft spoken ne'er do wells like Jeremy Corbyn.
Monday, 9 January 2017
I Don't Do Groupspeak, So I Need Help
Having never quite grasped why Marxism is the only way to save humanity, which I only base on experience - Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Cambodia, China, I need some modern stuff explained to me. For instance, Brexit.
Now to me, it seems straightforward. Having succumbed to lies and propaganda way back in the Seventies, we saddled ourselves with a Marxist bureaucracy. Luckily we dodged its worst bits and now have (mostly) awoken to it and elected to leave.
In order to do this, we need to give this club, this institution due notice and that is with something called 'Article 50'. This EU rule says that a member state wishing to leave must invoke Article 50, which gives the EU 2 years to try to talk them out of it. Basically, an opportunity to renegotiate the rules. Or not.
But we have a lot of very disingenuous people asking where is Theresa May's Brexit strategy? What will be her negotiating tactic? Surely (point out where I'm wrong please) her tactic will be to invoke Article 50 "we're offski". And then when the EU negotiates with such things as 'what if we offer to change the shade of blue on the flag?' or 'what about a special handshake?' , you know the usual substantive stuff they come up with, Theresa can say 'No'.
Sounds like a complete strategy to me. I mean, Britain has told its politicians to leave the EU, not just say we are going to and then stay in because they said we could have a cake named after us. What piece of paper could Mrs May come back from Germany waving that would say we should accept a Marxist future?
Not to labour the point, but in Mrs Mays shoes I would just pop over to Brussels, tell them Britain is quitting and leave saying 'let me know when the paperwork is done.'
Obviously, another thing is Global Warming, or Climate Change. Interesting isn't it, how liars change the name of things when people start to realise what they are saying is a crock. Nobody has said there has been no global warming, because there has, recently and repeatedly in the past.
The reason Global Warming morphed into Climate Change was to cover the embarrassment that the temperature hasn't risen since 1997. So, maybe the climate just changes, but it is still our fault, because of all the carbon. Except, they don't mean carbon. Carbon sounds dirty and carbon dioxide doesn't, so they manipulate the language.
But that isn't all it amounts to is it? These Marxists know that you are an imbecile, so it doesn't matter if there is no scientific rigour in what they say, you wouldn't understand anyway. But in fact there can be no scientific rigour in what they say, because then you would know it wasn't true.
Man's emissions are not lovely and we should be producing technology to reduce them, but carbon dioxide emitted by human activity is way too insignificant, on a global scale to affect the climate. They know this but, to use their own phrase 'look where the money is'. Try getting a grant to study why climate change isn't caused by Man, or get a book published by a big publishing house that shows the lie.
No all the money is in government hands and it only goes to the leeches who promulgate the lie. Know why you can't get your bins emptied or roads repaired? Because the councils spend way too much on green crap and other Leftie nonsense no sane person wants. Know why old people die of cold, unable to heat their homes? Because green greed has pushed up prices of energy for no purpose. Wind farms, solar panels? Near to useless and completely barmy if you looked at cost versus return.
Why do you think every 'Green' company squeals like a stuck pig if subsidies are reduced and then go bust. Wind farms only farm taxpayers cash.
National treasure, David Attenborough says that we should not apply the scientific method to Climate Change, it should be illegal to oppose it and no one should be allowed to debate it. Now why would that be? Why should you not even be allowed to talk about it let alone study it? Why should evidence based science be outlawed?
Well, because some have done it, we know for a fact that the ideology of Global Warming is just that, an ideology. It has no basis in fact. It is Attenborough's religion, nothing less. He believes in it as an article of faith.
WWF and all the other Marxist zealots driving the scam are using it to undermine and ultimately to destroy capitalism and with it Western civilisation. Apres la deluge they intend a World government, run by really clever, lovely people (them) and no hint of democracy or return on ambition and hard work.
At least that's what I think. You could point out where I'm wrong, but I guess that would be like providing evidence and I realise we are past all that stuff. So, can I have the change from the £50 I just gave you? What do you mean it was only a tenner? And don't ask for proof. See, I do get it.
Now to me, it seems straightforward. Having succumbed to lies and propaganda way back in the Seventies, we saddled ourselves with a Marxist bureaucracy. Luckily we dodged its worst bits and now have (mostly) awoken to it and elected to leave.
In order to do this, we need to give this club, this institution due notice and that is with something called 'Article 50'. This EU rule says that a member state wishing to leave must invoke Article 50, which gives the EU 2 years to try to talk them out of it. Basically, an opportunity to renegotiate the rules. Or not.
But we have a lot of very disingenuous people asking where is Theresa May's Brexit strategy? What will be her negotiating tactic? Surely (point out where I'm wrong please) her tactic will be to invoke Article 50 "we're offski". And then when the EU negotiates with such things as 'what if we offer to change the shade of blue on the flag?' or 'what about a special handshake?' , you know the usual substantive stuff they come up with, Theresa can say 'No'.
Sounds like a complete strategy to me. I mean, Britain has told its politicians to leave the EU, not just say we are going to and then stay in because they said we could have a cake named after us. What piece of paper could Mrs May come back from Germany waving that would say we should accept a Marxist future?
Not to labour the point, but in Mrs Mays shoes I would just pop over to Brussels, tell them Britain is quitting and leave saying 'let me know when the paperwork is done.'
Obviously, another thing is Global Warming, or Climate Change. Interesting isn't it, how liars change the name of things when people start to realise what they are saying is a crock. Nobody has said there has been no global warming, because there has, recently and repeatedly in the past.
The reason Global Warming morphed into Climate Change was to cover the embarrassment that the temperature hasn't risen since 1997. So, maybe the climate just changes, but it is still our fault, because of all the carbon. Except, they don't mean carbon. Carbon sounds dirty and carbon dioxide doesn't, so they manipulate the language.
But that isn't all it amounts to is it? These Marxists know that you are an imbecile, so it doesn't matter if there is no scientific rigour in what they say, you wouldn't understand anyway. But in fact there can be no scientific rigour in what they say, because then you would know it wasn't true.
Man's emissions are not lovely and we should be producing technology to reduce them, but carbon dioxide emitted by human activity is way too insignificant, on a global scale to affect the climate. They know this but, to use their own phrase 'look where the money is'. Try getting a grant to study why climate change isn't caused by Man, or get a book published by a big publishing house that shows the lie.
No all the money is in government hands and it only goes to the leeches who promulgate the lie. Know why you can't get your bins emptied or roads repaired? Because the councils spend way too much on green crap and other Leftie nonsense no sane person wants. Know why old people die of cold, unable to heat their homes? Because green greed has pushed up prices of energy for no purpose. Wind farms, solar panels? Near to useless and completely barmy if you looked at cost versus return.
Why do you think every 'Green' company squeals like a stuck pig if subsidies are reduced and then go bust. Wind farms only farm taxpayers cash.
National treasure, David Attenborough says that we should not apply the scientific method to Climate Change, it should be illegal to oppose it and no one should be allowed to debate it. Now why would that be? Why should you not even be allowed to talk about it let alone study it? Why should evidence based science be outlawed?
Well, because some have done it, we know for a fact that the ideology of Global Warming is just that, an ideology. It has no basis in fact. It is Attenborough's religion, nothing less. He believes in it as an article of faith.
WWF and all the other Marxist zealots driving the scam are using it to undermine and ultimately to destroy capitalism and with it Western civilisation. Apres la deluge they intend a World government, run by really clever, lovely people (them) and no hint of democracy or return on ambition and hard work.
At least that's what I think. You could point out where I'm wrong, but I guess that would be like providing evidence and I realise we are past all that stuff. So, can I have the change from the £50 I just gave you? What do you mean it was only a tenner? And don't ask for proof. See, I do get it.
Monday, 23 May 2016
One Month To Go!
Well, what can one say? Thankfully a number of our politicians have been prepared to break ranks and tell the British people that the EU is a bad idea. They don't seem to be making a particularly good job of it, but at least they have principles.
Which it has to be said doesn't seem to be the case with David Cameron and his cronies. are we really such stupid little children that scare stories are their best option? We couldn't understand facts?
I suppose the indicators are there for him to reach such a conclusion. Several people you (and the media) talk to seem to cleave to the EU because, well because, er, it would be dangerous to leave, or summink.
As has been said, the only people who support the EU are those in its pay and those who don't understand it. Certainly anyone I ask, once they have said we should stay in, has no idea whatsoever how the EU works and if pushed assume it is pretty much like the British government.
They don't know it is run by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. They don't know that in the EU, the law we have developed over a thousand years is stood on its head. Here, the people own the law, in the EU the law owns the people, the population exists to serve the state.
They don't know its police and bureaucrats are immune from prosecution. There can only be one reason to give your police this protection and it fits neatly with the totalitarian state that the EU is working towards.
But more importantly, Cameron. He says we will never join the Euro and we will never accept a superstate. Better leave now then Dave! Because the EU project is and always has been, to create a single country called Europe, with no nation states. A superstate.
And to achieve this, they must have everything under the control of the state, all tax, all decision making, all areas of policy and all control over the currency. A single currency, the Euro and a single elite.
Democracy has been a real hindrance to 'the project', it has held it up tremendously, by requiring circuitous lawmaking, to avoid the electorates realising what they are up to. This is why the EU has no democracy itself and will not tolerate it once it finally achieves its goal of unity.
Few people disagree that it is massively corrupt and fundamentally inept, but on it goes, its accounts never signed off year after year and financial crises dealt with ruthlessly (see: Greece).
The Italians, the Spanish, the French and the Germans have all dreamed of European empires and have at various times tried to bring them about militarily. This has never worked and a major reason why has always been Britain. Not seeking a European empire, we merely dealt with them and walked away.
So, the most recent plotters decided to try subterfuge. A political solution, involving financial domination (see:Greece and others) and tricking Britain into joining. This neutered us from providing an alternative vision for Europe, where proud, but very different countries agreed their agendas and talked things through.
But Germany and France wanted an empire (see: the Ukraine) and so ever-closer Union was the only game in town. And to be fair, we have been pretty slow to realise how duped we have been. For Heaven's sake they told us to give up our fishing waters and we did! How mad are we?
For the project this proved we were stupid enough to be allowed to join. And to be a major paymaster for them.
This is an age after all when we believe stupid things and stupid things that are stunningly obviously stupid. Let us consider the meeting of the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of the Working Class of all Nations, or more snappily the MPFLWCN. Or perhaps it is the Popular Front of Working Class Liberation, or possibly Workers Against Nations Knowingly Empowering Rich Scum.
Anyway, they sit down in a pub and check everyone has got their benefits before ordering drinks, there is nothing worse than a Marxist revolutionary sponging off the backs of his working class, though not actually working comrades.
Then they decide that, despite the very sound idea that the proletariat would rise up in violent revolution against their oppressive bosses and their lickspittle governments, it seems that advancing themselves by ambition has turned out a better bet.
When the poor get an education they realise a) how to improve their lot and b) what a bunch of idle, childish and petulant wankers Marxists are. And so fail to put their lives on the line so a bunch of ne'er do wells can step forward and run everything for us, because they are a) much more intelligent and b) hugely benevolent in thought and deed.
So no revolution then. The meeting now needed to move on to more drinks and some crisps. Hand made, Balsamic Vinegar and Kale. Salt and Vinegar and Cheese and Onion are vulgar, in vulgar packaging and suitable only for the proles.
So, what to do to overthrow Capitalism and renew the Utopia that was the Soviet Union. Well EU natch, but what else. Being the most effective mechanism for wealth creation and redistribution it is hard to imagine why people would vote against capitalism.
Global Warming! Of course. There had been some data to show temperatures rising globally, which might be a new epoch of warmer weather, just like in the Middle Ages. All the Marxists needed to do was seize that agenda and say that the warming was entirely due to Man and our use of fossil fuels.
As this underpins the whole of the world economy and therefore capitalism, getting the morons to spend every penny they have on fighting it will wreck their economies and cause riots and revolution and that is where the Marxists can step in.
Even in a company of drunken revolutionaries there is always a naysayer and he now says "but won't someone point out that it is nonsense, scientifically?" Naturally, the answer is to use the past endeavours of Marxist theory in subverting the educational establishment.
Academia can be relied on to toe the party line and those with real scientific credentials, independently minded can be dealt with using standard Marxist tactics. Bully them. Threaten them. Don't talk to them. Ridicule them publicly. Anything but engage them in debate, as that can only end in defeat; the Marxists are lying of course.
But the real beauty of it was that it was so fundamentally stupid, such a weak idea, so easily proven wrong that if it worked it would be fantastic on two levels; destroying capitalism from within and nobody bold enough to realise that the emperor has no clothes.
It was so clearly tosh that if it worked it would be the biggest laugh ever. So it really was a great idea to ensure we had an education system that spent 11 years or more in getting our kids to a level where they can barely read or write, let alone know how to research stuff.
Who, once they have mastered Facebook and Twitter and their mobile phone wants to spend time figuring real stuff out? That's what the government is for innit? To tell us everyfink.
And so, people who have little idea about anything, believe the stupidest things will vote to stay in the EU. Then even a notional Tory like Cameron starts to believe Marxism has its uses.
Which it has to be said doesn't seem to be the case with David Cameron and his cronies. are we really such stupid little children that scare stories are their best option? We couldn't understand facts?
I suppose the indicators are there for him to reach such a conclusion. Several people you (and the media) talk to seem to cleave to the EU because, well because, er, it would be dangerous to leave, or summink.
As has been said, the only people who support the EU are those in its pay and those who don't understand it. Certainly anyone I ask, once they have said we should stay in, has no idea whatsoever how the EU works and if pushed assume it is pretty much like the British government.
They don't know it is run by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. They don't know that in the EU, the law we have developed over a thousand years is stood on its head. Here, the people own the law, in the EU the law owns the people, the population exists to serve the state.
They don't know its police and bureaucrats are immune from prosecution. There can only be one reason to give your police this protection and it fits neatly with the totalitarian state that the EU is working towards.
But more importantly, Cameron. He says we will never join the Euro and we will never accept a superstate. Better leave now then Dave! Because the EU project is and always has been, to create a single country called Europe, with no nation states. A superstate.
And to achieve this, they must have everything under the control of the state, all tax, all decision making, all areas of policy and all control over the currency. A single currency, the Euro and a single elite.
Democracy has been a real hindrance to 'the project', it has held it up tremendously, by requiring circuitous lawmaking, to avoid the electorates realising what they are up to. This is why the EU has no democracy itself and will not tolerate it once it finally achieves its goal of unity.
Few people disagree that it is massively corrupt and fundamentally inept, but on it goes, its accounts never signed off year after year and financial crises dealt with ruthlessly (see: Greece).
The Italians, the Spanish, the French and the Germans have all dreamed of European empires and have at various times tried to bring them about militarily. This has never worked and a major reason why has always been Britain. Not seeking a European empire, we merely dealt with them and walked away.
So, the most recent plotters decided to try subterfuge. A political solution, involving financial domination (see:Greece and others) and tricking Britain into joining. This neutered us from providing an alternative vision for Europe, where proud, but very different countries agreed their agendas and talked things through.
But Germany and France wanted an empire (see: the Ukraine) and so ever-closer Union was the only game in town. And to be fair, we have been pretty slow to realise how duped we have been. For Heaven's sake they told us to give up our fishing waters and we did! How mad are we?
For the project this proved we were stupid enough to be allowed to join. And to be a major paymaster for them.
This is an age after all when we believe stupid things and stupid things that are stunningly obviously stupid. Let us consider the meeting of the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of the Working Class of all Nations, or more snappily the MPFLWCN. Or perhaps it is the Popular Front of Working Class Liberation, or possibly Workers Against Nations Knowingly Empowering Rich Scum.
Anyway, they sit down in a pub and check everyone has got their benefits before ordering drinks, there is nothing worse than a Marxist revolutionary sponging off the backs of his working class, though not actually working comrades.
Then they decide that, despite the very sound idea that the proletariat would rise up in violent revolution against their oppressive bosses and their lickspittle governments, it seems that advancing themselves by ambition has turned out a better bet.
When the poor get an education they realise a) how to improve their lot and b) what a bunch of idle, childish and petulant wankers Marxists are. And so fail to put their lives on the line so a bunch of ne'er do wells can step forward and run everything for us, because they are a) much more intelligent and b) hugely benevolent in thought and deed.
So no revolution then. The meeting now needed to move on to more drinks and some crisps. Hand made, Balsamic Vinegar and Kale. Salt and Vinegar and Cheese and Onion are vulgar, in vulgar packaging and suitable only for the proles.
So, what to do to overthrow Capitalism and renew the Utopia that was the Soviet Union. Well EU natch, but what else. Being the most effective mechanism for wealth creation and redistribution it is hard to imagine why people would vote against capitalism.
Global Warming! Of course. There had been some data to show temperatures rising globally, which might be a new epoch of warmer weather, just like in the Middle Ages. All the Marxists needed to do was seize that agenda and say that the warming was entirely due to Man and our use of fossil fuels.
As this underpins the whole of the world economy and therefore capitalism, getting the morons to spend every penny they have on fighting it will wreck their economies and cause riots and revolution and that is where the Marxists can step in.
Even in a company of drunken revolutionaries there is always a naysayer and he now says "but won't someone point out that it is nonsense, scientifically?" Naturally, the answer is to use the past endeavours of Marxist theory in subverting the educational establishment.
Academia can be relied on to toe the party line and those with real scientific credentials, independently minded can be dealt with using standard Marxist tactics. Bully them. Threaten them. Don't talk to them. Ridicule them publicly. Anything but engage them in debate, as that can only end in defeat; the Marxists are lying of course.
But the real beauty of it was that it was so fundamentally stupid, such a weak idea, so easily proven wrong that if it worked it would be fantastic on two levels; destroying capitalism from within and nobody bold enough to realise that the emperor has no clothes.
It was so clearly tosh that if it worked it would be the biggest laugh ever. So it really was a great idea to ensure we had an education system that spent 11 years or more in getting our kids to a level where they can barely read or write, let alone know how to research stuff.
Who, once they have mastered Facebook and Twitter and their mobile phone wants to spend time figuring real stuff out? That's what the government is for innit? To tell us everyfink.
And so, people who have little idea about anything, believe the stupidest things will vote to stay in the EU. Then even a notional Tory like Cameron starts to believe Marxism has its uses.
Tuesday, 5 May 2015
The Stupidity Of The Intellectual
We know universities hand out bits of paper instead of earned certificates of learning. The endeavour now being to turn up. However, despite the political failings, some people still have intelligence and leave university having learnt something.
Some go on to use it usefully. Some become intellectuals, which all too often means left wing ideologues, with no idea. And like Global Warming, even their education doesn't stop them believing truly unbelievable things. Their ideology trumps all and any hint of science (in this case) is roundly forgotten.
Now, Christopher Booker, James Delingpole and others have been honoured by a particularly stupid bunch of intelligent people at a Polytechnic in Cambridge. They have been labelled 'deniers' because they point out the scientific flaws in the claims of the political groups pushing the Global Warming scam.
Of course, the idiots get to use the prejudicial term denier because they seek always to set the agenda (and use political correctness to close any debate that accidentally starts). They always do this.
So these morons are hoping that history will see Booker et al as idiots for opposing Global Warming. Here is a comment from real history that reflects where those claiming there must be no debate, may themselves be judged.
In the late 1800's an Italian by the name of Lombrosso developed a theory that people were 'born criminals' and that you could identify this class merely by looking at them, from their physical features. I'm guessing this is not a view currently held even by Global Warming fanatics.
When scientific views were put forward to show how wrong Lombrosso's theory was an outraged colleague said, reflecting the high esteem in which Lombrosso was otherwise generally held; "The criminal type is a definite fact, acquired by science, on this point no further discussion is admissible".
Is that right? Was it based on science? Is denial or disagreeing as it is usually called, of the theory that people are born as criminals, not allowed?
*Quoting Giulio Fioretti.
Some go on to use it usefully. Some become intellectuals, which all too often means left wing ideologues, with no idea. And like Global Warming, even their education doesn't stop them believing truly unbelievable things. Their ideology trumps all and any hint of science (in this case) is roundly forgotten.
Now, Christopher Booker, James Delingpole and others have been honoured by a particularly stupid bunch of intelligent people at a Polytechnic in Cambridge. They have been labelled 'deniers' because they point out the scientific flaws in the claims of the political groups pushing the Global Warming scam.
Of course, the idiots get to use the prejudicial term denier because they seek always to set the agenda (and use political correctness to close any debate that accidentally starts). They always do this.
So these morons are hoping that history will see Booker et al as idiots for opposing Global Warming. Here is a comment from real history that reflects where those claiming there must be no debate, may themselves be judged.
In the late 1800's an Italian by the name of Lombrosso developed a theory that people were 'born criminals' and that you could identify this class merely by looking at them, from their physical features. I'm guessing this is not a view currently held even by Global Warming fanatics.
When scientific views were put forward to show how wrong Lombrosso's theory was an outraged colleague said, reflecting the high esteem in which Lombrosso was otherwise generally held; "The criminal type is a definite fact, acquired by science, on this point no further discussion is admissible".
Is that right? Was it based on science? Is denial or disagreeing as it is usually called, of the theory that people are born as criminals, not allowed?
*Quoting Giulio Fioretti.
Tuesday, 3 February 2015
We Require A New Philosophy
For a long time now we as a society and the West generally, have been following a Left wing agenda. It sets the ethos and ethics and instructs us on the path to take. It does so outside of democracy by not actually asking for visible power, but it exerts it none the less.
It does so by evoking its creed 'progressive', to suggest that we are achieving progress by following their lead, but going in the right direction. Blair called it 'modern'. But 'the right direction' is one that works for the vast majority, one that people agree on. For the Left that is not it at all. Their 'right direction' is when they get what they want.
It is a form of fundamentalism that is every bit as careless of the public at large as ISIS, but does so behind the scenes most of the time. It tried mass murder before and strangely it wasn't as wildly popular as was imagined. Violent revolution is out, for the time being and soft, patient destruction is in.
So what are the fundamentals of the strong Western society that has done so well since the Reformation? Well, basically, family, individual liberty, democracy, capitalism and property rights and strong law to support these ideals and the people (in general).
Reviewing all of the above, which are all iniquitous to a solid, Left wing totalitarian state, the only ones that really matter are capitalism and family. These, if suppressed will never be other than a cause of friction, better for the people to come to realise that they are false, or perhaps just lose them by inattention.
A society once reliant on these codes and mores that sees them vanish will become chaotic and at that point the lever pullers will step from behind the curtain to seize power and delete the other aspects of liberty, freedom and justice. The state, e.g the Left elite will provide all that.
Capitalism is the tough one. It works and is seen to work (see ebay and the sharing community). Left to their own devices people instinctively act in a capitalistic fashion. The phrase 'to better oneself' or even 'to better provide for my family' are garlic to the Left vampire.
So, the nuclear family had to be the target. Hence the sexual revolution of the Sixties, the relaxation of divorce laws, the insistence by the Left that women should work (that looking after children was beneath them and used by men to oppress them) and the promotion of homosexuality and paedophilia.
Much of this worked because it all seemed so 'reasonable' and caring. To think otherwise made you feel as if you were constraining someone else, not empathetic. The introduction of welfare for single parents and the insistence that children born out of wedlock should not be a shame on the mother, were crucial building blocks in destroying the family.
A mother who devotes herself to her family and works in the home, looking after children cannot be costed or underrated, any more than the man, who sees less of his children due to his devotion to family by work and providing an income. Whilst men have become accustomed to feeling superior, nothing stops a woman working and they are no less able. By such action attitudes change.
Naturally, a woman going out to work meant two incomes in a family and an increase in their wealth and ambitions. This isn't the Leftist way, so thankfully the ability to pay more for a house meant prices shot up and the Left pushed the need for ever more expensive, regulated childcare to remove as much of this income as possible.
They don't care about a woman's identity and feeling of worth, by having a job, they just don't want her forming a strong family unit. Just like they care nothing about the angst and mental anguish of the homosexual and paedophile, they just know they both can help to destroy a society's structure, if they push for 'rights'. Which is why the 'movements' supporting these activities are so aggressive.
Capitalism, the Left tried to address intellectually. They pointed out that some people were rich and others not and that it would be perfectly in order for the poorer to take what they want from the 'rich'. (Most Left wing ideas are at best naive, the sort of things you believe at school but then leave behind when you discover the real world - so after university as well)
They talked about fairness and redistribution of wealth, but as they progressively undermined education (their state cannot have educated people in it, someone has to do the work), the public became less and less interested in such matters. Bit of an own goal there.
But then they hit on an idea of simple genius. They would use the mass stupidity they had created to get turkeys to vote for Christmas. There had been some academic research into the possibility of an impending ice age as it seemed to be getting colder. Then it seemed to get warmer and the scare went away. But some, looking at the mechanisms decided to go further.
An effect was discovered that became known as 'the greenhouse effect'. The biggest aspect of this is clouds. They reflect sunlight off their tops back into space and act as a blanket keeping warmth in. Other things keep heat in too like methane and carbon dioxide.
It took only one person at first I guess, who had never got past schoolboy politics to think; if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and Man has been producing ever greater quantities of it then surely we have warmed the planet? We have affected the climate!
Studies were carried out and even by 1966 it had been concluded that the amounts produced by Man were insignificant in the context of global conditions controlling climate. But science isn't static and politics not interested in the truth when a lie works better.
So, the essentially sound theory that CO2 can cause warming, was pushed way beyond credulity (but when told to simple folk, with a straight face, can work) and sustained by a wave of propaganda. Politicians of all stripes saw in it a way to raise taxes and the Left were gleeful that capitalism was destroying itself spending its wealth chasing a chimera.
For the Left of course it was even more totemic. If you can get people to believe a completely unbelievable thing, something a child could see through, then you have achieved a great thing. So global warming wasn't just helping to destroy capitalism from within, it was proving just how stupid people are. A massive coup.
At this point, those with an open mind and a leaning to enquiry ask about the science. It is settled apparently. Well, there immediately is the problem. Scientists are telling us that something, perhaps the only thing in the history of Mankind, is absolutely 'known' by scientists. They are so sure that they not only say further research would be pointless, they insist there must be no further research.
And as governments pay the scientists, I guess anyone saying, 'well, I might have a look any way' will find he has no funding. And is now being ridiculed personally in august scientific journals.
Science has a method. This says that by observing and experimenting, producing repeatable results we can espouse a theory. It is up to others to prove it wrong. All of the global warming data says things like, its been hotter and colder before, so climate changes for reasons we don't understand. The planet warms and CO2 content goes up, not the other way around.
It has been colder when there was way, way more CO2 in the atmosphere. Water vapour (clouds) are by many, many times the largest warming contributor, oh and OMG, the Sun. Didn't see that one coming eh? And the only current empirical evidence from observation we have is that there has been no global warming for 18 years.
The Left's global warming scam was based on ever more CO2 causing ever more warming, and computer models preloaded with that assumption. So, our current crop of scientists don't hold to the scientific method, have made the most costly demands in history all supported only by computer models and no actual science.
When they discovered the evidence was against them, they lied but somebody leaked the emails. But then of course the international body running the climate change scam, demanding you show it respect consists of a few vested interest scientists and a whole raft of anti-capitalist activists like Greenpeace and WWF. Run by a railway engineer, who makes a nice penny on the side with his 'green' companies looking for government handouts.
So, the Left are currently pushing up your energy prices massively (more to come), ensuring your children don't get an education, destroying healthcare, making the police a political body and increasing state powers in as many areas as it can. The EU could be a part of it, again it is a Marxist ideal lying about its true intentions, but it is run clumsily by too many traditional politicians, so is little more than a sideshow for the real Left.
What we need is a better understanding of how we live together, to return freedoms that even so called conservatives are taking away and a new philosophy. What we mustn't do meantime is undermine our own democracy by voting for Marxists like Labour, the Lib Dems or, heaven help us, the Greens.
It does so by evoking its creed 'progressive', to suggest that we are achieving progress by following their lead, but going in the right direction. Blair called it 'modern'. But 'the right direction' is one that works for the vast majority, one that people agree on. For the Left that is not it at all. Their 'right direction' is when they get what they want.
It is a form of fundamentalism that is every bit as careless of the public at large as ISIS, but does so behind the scenes most of the time. It tried mass murder before and strangely it wasn't as wildly popular as was imagined. Violent revolution is out, for the time being and soft, patient destruction is in.
So what are the fundamentals of the strong Western society that has done so well since the Reformation? Well, basically, family, individual liberty, democracy, capitalism and property rights and strong law to support these ideals and the people (in general).
Reviewing all of the above, which are all iniquitous to a solid, Left wing totalitarian state, the only ones that really matter are capitalism and family. These, if suppressed will never be other than a cause of friction, better for the people to come to realise that they are false, or perhaps just lose them by inattention.
A society once reliant on these codes and mores that sees them vanish will become chaotic and at that point the lever pullers will step from behind the curtain to seize power and delete the other aspects of liberty, freedom and justice. The state, e.g the Left elite will provide all that.
Capitalism is the tough one. It works and is seen to work (see ebay and the sharing community). Left to their own devices people instinctively act in a capitalistic fashion. The phrase 'to better oneself' or even 'to better provide for my family' are garlic to the Left vampire.
So, the nuclear family had to be the target. Hence the sexual revolution of the Sixties, the relaxation of divorce laws, the insistence by the Left that women should work (that looking after children was beneath them and used by men to oppress them) and the promotion of homosexuality and paedophilia.
Much of this worked because it all seemed so 'reasonable' and caring. To think otherwise made you feel as if you were constraining someone else, not empathetic. The introduction of welfare for single parents and the insistence that children born out of wedlock should not be a shame on the mother, were crucial building blocks in destroying the family.
A mother who devotes herself to her family and works in the home, looking after children cannot be costed or underrated, any more than the man, who sees less of his children due to his devotion to family by work and providing an income. Whilst men have become accustomed to feeling superior, nothing stops a woman working and they are no less able. By such action attitudes change.
Naturally, a woman going out to work meant two incomes in a family and an increase in their wealth and ambitions. This isn't the Leftist way, so thankfully the ability to pay more for a house meant prices shot up and the Left pushed the need for ever more expensive, regulated childcare to remove as much of this income as possible.
They don't care about a woman's identity and feeling of worth, by having a job, they just don't want her forming a strong family unit. Just like they care nothing about the angst and mental anguish of the homosexual and paedophile, they just know they both can help to destroy a society's structure, if they push for 'rights'. Which is why the 'movements' supporting these activities are so aggressive.
Capitalism, the Left tried to address intellectually. They pointed out that some people were rich and others not and that it would be perfectly in order for the poorer to take what they want from the 'rich'. (Most Left wing ideas are at best naive, the sort of things you believe at school but then leave behind when you discover the real world - so after university as well)
They talked about fairness and redistribution of wealth, but as they progressively undermined education (their state cannot have educated people in it, someone has to do the work), the public became less and less interested in such matters. Bit of an own goal there.
But then they hit on an idea of simple genius. They would use the mass stupidity they had created to get turkeys to vote for Christmas. There had been some academic research into the possibility of an impending ice age as it seemed to be getting colder. Then it seemed to get warmer and the scare went away. But some, looking at the mechanisms decided to go further.
An effect was discovered that became known as 'the greenhouse effect'. The biggest aspect of this is clouds. They reflect sunlight off their tops back into space and act as a blanket keeping warmth in. Other things keep heat in too like methane and carbon dioxide.
It took only one person at first I guess, who had never got past schoolboy politics to think; if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and Man has been producing ever greater quantities of it then surely we have warmed the planet? We have affected the climate!
Studies were carried out and even by 1966 it had been concluded that the amounts produced by Man were insignificant in the context of global conditions controlling climate. But science isn't static and politics not interested in the truth when a lie works better.
So, the essentially sound theory that CO2 can cause warming, was pushed way beyond credulity (but when told to simple folk, with a straight face, can work) and sustained by a wave of propaganda. Politicians of all stripes saw in it a way to raise taxes and the Left were gleeful that capitalism was destroying itself spending its wealth chasing a chimera.
For the Left of course it was even more totemic. If you can get people to believe a completely unbelievable thing, something a child could see through, then you have achieved a great thing. So global warming wasn't just helping to destroy capitalism from within, it was proving just how stupid people are. A massive coup.
At this point, those with an open mind and a leaning to enquiry ask about the science. It is settled apparently. Well, there immediately is the problem. Scientists are telling us that something, perhaps the only thing in the history of Mankind, is absolutely 'known' by scientists. They are so sure that they not only say further research would be pointless, they insist there must be no further research.
And as governments pay the scientists, I guess anyone saying, 'well, I might have a look any way' will find he has no funding. And is now being ridiculed personally in august scientific journals.
Science has a method. This says that by observing and experimenting, producing repeatable results we can espouse a theory. It is up to others to prove it wrong. All of the global warming data says things like, its been hotter and colder before, so climate changes for reasons we don't understand. The planet warms and CO2 content goes up, not the other way around.
It has been colder when there was way, way more CO2 in the atmosphere. Water vapour (clouds) are by many, many times the largest warming contributor, oh and OMG, the Sun. Didn't see that one coming eh? And the only current empirical evidence from observation we have is that there has been no global warming for 18 years.
The Left's global warming scam was based on ever more CO2 causing ever more warming, and computer models preloaded with that assumption. So, our current crop of scientists don't hold to the scientific method, have made the most costly demands in history all supported only by computer models and no actual science.
When they discovered the evidence was against them, they lied but somebody leaked the emails. But then of course the international body running the climate change scam, demanding you show it respect consists of a few vested interest scientists and a whole raft of anti-capitalist activists like Greenpeace and WWF. Run by a railway engineer, who makes a nice penny on the side with his 'green' companies looking for government handouts.
So, the Left are currently pushing up your energy prices massively (more to come), ensuring your children don't get an education, destroying healthcare, making the police a political body and increasing state powers in as many areas as it can. The EU could be a part of it, again it is a Marxist ideal lying about its true intentions, but it is run clumsily by too many traditional politicians, so is little more than a sideshow for the real Left.
What we need is a better understanding of how we live together, to return freedoms that even so called conservatives are taking away and a new philosophy. What we mustn't do meantime is undermine our own democracy by voting for Marxists like Labour, the Lib Dems or, heaven help us, the Greens.
Tuesday, 1 April 2014
BBC: No Point Complaining
To support the lies of the anti-capitalists pushing the Global Warming scam, the BBC has gone into overdrive with its propaganda. Now, whilst in a sane world this would attract a sustainable complaint, it is not the worst of it.
Last night the BBC wheeled on Roger Harrabin to talk about Global Warming. He said the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting (we dealt with that ages ago- isn't happening), the Arctic melting (he means in the summer, not mentioning it comes back in the winter) and other tired lines.
The problem is though, the BBC omitted to mention that their employee, given this airtime, has a vested interest in the continuation of the Global Warming theme. He has a financial interest. He is involved with Green projects from which he personally benefits.
The BBC feels that it is so morally superior that anything is justified. What is actually the case is that the stench of corruption is so prevalent, that they can't smell a new arrival.
Last night the BBC wheeled on Roger Harrabin to talk about Global Warming. He said the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting (we dealt with that ages ago- isn't happening), the Arctic melting (he means in the summer, not mentioning it comes back in the winter) and other tired lines.
The problem is though, the BBC omitted to mention that their employee, given this airtime, has a vested interest in the continuation of the Global Warming theme. He has a financial interest. He is involved with Green projects from which he personally benefits.
The BBC feels that it is so morally superior that anything is justified. What is actually the case is that the stench of corruption is so prevalent, that they can't smell a new arrival.
Expert, Textpert, Choking Smokers
Are there any honest scientists around these days? Any who got into science for the science and the thrill of discovery? Because the airwaves are constantly referring to 'experts' pontificating about something or other and they are usually more interested in their involvement than its veracity of accuracy.
Today, strangely soon after 5 a day was questioned due to the new hatred for sugar, we are told that 5 a day is not enough. No, to hell with the sugar, you need 7 portions a day of fruit and vegetables. Now I don't know about you, but I would expect this to be science based and tell us something important and provable.
I would expect that the science would show how our bodies interact with the food we eat and helps to prolong our lives. But nope, we still don't really understand that so it is a survey. Wonderful 'experts' have told us that they have found that people who live longer eat lots of fruit and vegetables. Were other aspects of their lifestyle factored out?
In fact, how do they know that the food they ate was a causative factor in their long life? What about genetics, exercise, wealth?
Then we have the wailing banshees of Global Warming. I cannot believe, actually, really cannot believe the news stories that reported the latest IPCC comedy script. How could anyone say, with a straight face that Global Warming has been worse than we feared, when there hasn't been any for 17 years?
Why are we even listening to people who a) can't explain why they didn't predict the lack of warming and b) can't explain how the supposed Global Warming actually occurs? Anyway, the rise in temperature over the last 150 years has been 0.7 degrees. This is not only insignificant and irrelevant, we also have no idea how out of kilter that is with historic climate variations.
What we do know is that it has been warmer and colder before without our CO2 having any input and that as we continue to pump out CO2 the temperature hasn't risen. Sure, anti-capitalist, AGW alarmists and even some people who support them and are scientists as well, have come up with some catch-all, speculative comments to explain away everything they get wrong, but generally they don't want to talk about it.
There is proof that CO2 isn't warming the globe, but none to say it does. All of the posing by the IPCC led by a railway engineer, doesn't change the fact that the only story they have is, there has been some overall warming and at the same time we have produced more CO2, so they must be linked.
Or maybe it was because Charles Dickens wrote some books, in that time window and reading them causes Global Warming. Really, that is no wilder than what we are asked to believe by the alarmists. Why otherwise would the latest IPCC report say Global Warming, even in the weird world they inhabit is less than we thought and the summary says 'we're doomed, doomed I tell you'.
Is it because the summary is for 'policymakers' so it is the bit that has to contain the con?
Today, strangely soon after 5 a day was questioned due to the new hatred for sugar, we are told that 5 a day is not enough. No, to hell with the sugar, you need 7 portions a day of fruit and vegetables. Now I don't know about you, but I would expect this to be science based and tell us something important and provable.
I would expect that the science would show how our bodies interact with the food we eat and helps to prolong our lives. But nope, we still don't really understand that so it is a survey. Wonderful 'experts' have told us that they have found that people who live longer eat lots of fruit and vegetables. Were other aspects of their lifestyle factored out?
In fact, how do they know that the food they ate was a causative factor in their long life? What about genetics, exercise, wealth?
Then we have the wailing banshees of Global Warming. I cannot believe, actually, really cannot believe the news stories that reported the latest IPCC comedy script. How could anyone say, with a straight face that Global Warming has been worse than we feared, when there hasn't been any for 17 years?
Why are we even listening to people who a) can't explain why they didn't predict the lack of warming and b) can't explain how the supposed Global Warming actually occurs? Anyway, the rise in temperature over the last 150 years has been 0.7 degrees. This is not only insignificant and irrelevant, we also have no idea how out of kilter that is with historic climate variations.
What we do know is that it has been warmer and colder before without our CO2 having any input and that as we continue to pump out CO2 the temperature hasn't risen. Sure, anti-capitalist, AGW alarmists and even some people who support them and are scientists as well, have come up with some catch-all, speculative comments to explain away everything they get wrong, but generally they don't want to talk about it.
There is proof that CO2 isn't warming the globe, but none to say it does. All of the posing by the IPCC led by a railway engineer, doesn't change the fact that the only story they have is, there has been some overall warming and at the same time we have produced more CO2, so they must be linked.
Or maybe it was because Charles Dickens wrote some books, in that time window and reading them causes Global Warming. Really, that is no wilder than what we are asked to believe by the alarmists. Why otherwise would the latest IPCC report say Global Warming, even in the weird world they inhabit is less than we thought and the summary says 'we're doomed, doomed I tell you'.
Is it because the summary is for 'policymakers' so it is the bit that has to contain the con?
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
Met Office May Have It Right
The BBC via its science editor David Shukman is pushing the latest output from the Climate Change Propaganda Unit otherwise known as the Met Office. This time however, after repeated attempts to predict the weather based on Climate Change ideology and getting it spectacularly wrong, they may have hit on a winning formula.
Apparently, the Met Office thinks that our summers will be hot, unless they're not, dry unless it rains and our winters will be milder, but sometimes cold with snow. Which sounds very much like the weather Britain has had as far back as I can remember.
In fact its unpredictability and variability is precisely why the British have a reputation for always talking about the weather. The twist of course, is that this variability is now portrayed as new and due to human factors affecting the climate.
Interestingly, neither Shukman nor the Met Office are troubled by the lack of science involved in reaching these politically motivated results. The Met Office is 100% on board with the Left oriented, anti-capitalist project that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Ask the Met Office why so many scientists have a problem with their prognostications and why their 'consensus' is almost entirely derived from vested interest, Left wing political organisations and they will refuse to talk to you. Offer to debate the subject and they will say it is a settled issue so there is no need. Because they have no ability to prove their case and they know it.
Generally, you can tell if you are being duped (and that it is a Left wing project) if you are not allowed to object to it, debate it, or that you are in some way defective if you disagree. Debating a con is not the way forward as many a criminal would tell you, so the weapon of choice of the Left is the one that shuts out and closes down debate.
Argument and 'proving your case' has long been the way the British have done things. It has shaped our culture and a broader civilisation and it has achieved great things. It is a fundamental of true liberty. So it is no surprise it is something the Left avoid as if it were a contagious plague. For them, it would be utter chaos if everyone was allowed to have an opinion and openly state it.
A command and control system cannot function unless the workers are kept in place, uneducated and with no ambition, without access to any forum for exchanging ideas. For their own good, of course.
Apparently, the Met Office thinks that our summers will be hot, unless they're not, dry unless it rains and our winters will be milder, but sometimes cold with snow. Which sounds very much like the weather Britain has had as far back as I can remember.
In fact its unpredictability and variability is precisely why the British have a reputation for always talking about the weather. The twist of course, is that this variability is now portrayed as new and due to human factors affecting the climate.
Interestingly, neither Shukman nor the Met Office are troubled by the lack of science involved in reaching these politically motivated results. The Met Office is 100% on board with the Left oriented, anti-capitalist project that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Ask the Met Office why so many scientists have a problem with their prognostications and why their 'consensus' is almost entirely derived from vested interest, Left wing political organisations and they will refuse to talk to you. Offer to debate the subject and they will say it is a settled issue so there is no need. Because they have no ability to prove their case and they know it.
Generally, you can tell if you are being duped (and that it is a Left wing project) if you are not allowed to object to it, debate it, or that you are in some way defective if you disagree. Debating a con is not the way forward as many a criminal would tell you, so the weapon of choice of the Left is the one that shuts out and closes down debate.
Argument and 'proving your case' has long been the way the British have done things. It has shaped our culture and a broader civilisation and it has achieved great things. It is a fundamental of true liberty. So it is no surprise it is something the Left avoid as if it were a contagious plague. For them, it would be utter chaos if everyone was allowed to have an opinion and openly state it.
A command and control system cannot function unless the workers are kept in place, uneducated and with no ambition, without access to any forum for exchanging ideas. For their own good, of course.
Friday, 14 February 2014
Politics And The Floods
Last night on Question Time, Professor Sir Robert Winston said that the floods are not a political matter and was admonishing the point scoring politicians present. He then went on later to give 'six points' to deal with the issue. All of them were political as all of them were injunctions to fight Global Warming.
He mentioned rising sea levels, which is just untrue, he talked of cutting back our water use (not sure why when the subject is floods) which is highly political. We have a water shortage in the UK only because the EU forbids the building of enough reservoirs to meet demand. Apparently, it is the only way to force us to reduce our usage, which we need to do due to the droughts which Global Warming is causing. Like the one we are experiencing now, for instance.
No, Winston didn't mean take politics out of it, he meant cut out debate. The loony Left are correct and he wants us to dismantle Western civilisation and capitalist society because he doesn't agree with it, but has done very nicely out of it, thank you. Actually, forget the thank you, he no doubt has a strong sense of entitlement about his own position. He is after all clearly a holder of Marxist values and that always includes an elite.
We must I suppose be thankful that he was a surgeon and not bending his mind to how to destroy this country, full time.
He mentioned rising sea levels, which is just untrue, he talked of cutting back our water use (not sure why when the subject is floods) which is highly political. We have a water shortage in the UK only because the EU forbids the building of enough reservoirs to meet demand. Apparently, it is the only way to force us to reduce our usage, which we need to do due to the droughts which Global Warming is causing. Like the one we are experiencing now, for instance.
No, Winston didn't mean take politics out of it, he meant cut out debate. The loony Left are correct and he wants us to dismantle Western civilisation and capitalist society because he doesn't agree with it, but has done very nicely out of it, thank you. Actually, forget the thank you, he no doubt has a strong sense of entitlement about his own position. He is after all clearly a holder of Marxist values and that always includes an elite.
We must I suppose be thankful that he was a surgeon and not bending his mind to how to destroy this country, full time.
Tuesday, 11 February 2014
Politics And Crisis Management
I am very confused. In the past a Conservative Prime Minister would have been outraged at the scope and duration of the suffering of those flooded. But we have had a generally quiet PM, now visiting the flooded areas. He isn't mad at a government agency that hasn't performed well, he isn't taking any action against the imbecile that runs the Environment Agency. He isn't demanding to know, well, anything. He's just, you know, concerned.
But concerned in what way? People are being seen on the TV saying they are doing what they can but are amateurs, exhausted etc. What they are actually saying is that they need direction, specific help and some idea that we can and are getting on top of it. The government reply that they hope it will stop raining soon. This from the people who tell us that if we pay enough taxes we can change the whole world's climate!
Oh and of course, Cameron is 'pretty sure' the imaginary friend, Global Warming is to blame. The deliberate flooding policy of the EA, seen now taking its effect, was of course a directive from the EU. And so proud are they of this and all their policies that it has to be kept out of conversation and debate. So, a scam to support the dreams of anti-capitalists and a ruling from unelected technocrats are wrecking lives in Britain and it must not be discussed openly. Proud of the country you live in?
But concerned in what way? People are being seen on the TV saying they are doing what they can but are amateurs, exhausted etc. What they are actually saying is that they need direction, specific help and some idea that we can and are getting on top of it. The government reply that they hope it will stop raining soon. This from the people who tell us that if we pay enough taxes we can change the whole world's climate!
Oh and of course, Cameron is 'pretty sure' the imaginary friend, Global Warming is to blame. The deliberate flooding policy of the EA, seen now taking its effect, was of course a directive from the EU. And so proud are they of this and all their policies that it has to be kept out of conversation and debate. So, a scam to support the dreams of anti-capitalists and a ruling from unelected technocrats are wrecking lives in Britain and it must not be discussed openly. Proud of the country you live in?
Thursday, 6 February 2014
Conversations: The Unbelievable Believed
Two friends (probably Andrew Normal-Person and a Mr. Ot, who likes to be called by his surname as his first name embarrasses him, being the same as ex-President Amin of Uganda).
A: 'I have just been on that lecture course I told you about. You know, Climate Change and how our polluting the world with carbon is causing runaway Global Warming - which reminds me, you got your heating on, I have. Always bloody cold me, dunno what my bill will be, why does gas and electricity cost so much?- Anyway. It was brilliant and sooo obvious when you are told how to look for the facts'.
B: 'Hasn't there been no warming for something like 16 years?'
A: 'Yeah, the computers predicted that. You get little pauses every now and again. Really caught the Deniers out; they hadn't predicted it at all - and they can't explain it'.
B: 'Hasn't it always fluctuated, the weather? You know sometimes warmer sometimes colder. Didn't we used to grow grapes here during Roman times, must have been warm then?'
A: 'No, apparently it's warmer now than it has ever been'
B: 'And you believe that, because of the lectures?'
A: 'Oh yes, they were excellent. The guy giving them had a PhD in Social Science, so you know he's clever and a Scientist. Plus, he cares, unlike those Deniers, because he works for Greenpeace'.
B: 'Right. Anyway, moving on. I have to go to New York next week, you should come along, we could have a great laugh'.
A: 'No, I couldn't go to America. They might be invaded by Martians again'.
B: 'Right. OK. I'll get you a Yankees cap'
A: 'That would be cool'.
A: 'I have just been on that lecture course I told you about. You know, Climate Change and how our polluting the world with carbon is causing runaway Global Warming - which reminds me, you got your heating on, I have. Always bloody cold me, dunno what my bill will be, why does gas and electricity cost so much?- Anyway. It was brilliant and sooo obvious when you are told how to look for the facts'.
B: 'Hasn't there been no warming for something like 16 years?'
A: 'Yeah, the computers predicted that. You get little pauses every now and again. Really caught the Deniers out; they hadn't predicted it at all - and they can't explain it'.
B: 'Hasn't it always fluctuated, the weather? You know sometimes warmer sometimes colder. Didn't we used to grow grapes here during Roman times, must have been warm then?'
A: 'No, apparently it's warmer now than it has ever been'
B: 'And you believe that, because of the lectures?'
A: 'Oh yes, they were excellent. The guy giving them had a PhD in Social Science, so you know he's clever and a Scientist. Plus, he cares, unlike those Deniers, because he works for Greenpeace'.
B: 'Right. Anyway, moving on. I have to go to New York next week, you should come along, we could have a great laugh'.
A: 'No, I couldn't go to America. They might be invaded by Martians again'.
B: 'Right. OK. I'll get you a Yankees cap'
A: 'That would be cool'.
Conversations: Global Warming/Climate Change Debate
This conversation is between two friends, normal people unconnected to anything 'climate' related.
A: 'Oh yeah, I got a book by that bloke you were on about'
B: 'Eh?'
A: 'You know, the one you said was brilliant, explained all the climate change stuff. Never really understood it myself'
B: 'Oh yes, I know. So you liked it then? He really knows his stuff doesn't it? Makes it clear what is going on. Before I heard about him I didn't really have any idea about it all either, but now I have no idea how anyone can deny it.
A: 'What I liked was that he explains it all, goes through the science and how he observed it out his window, really happening'
B: 'Thing is mate, Sir Crispin Tickell is a clever bloke, he was a close advisor to Margaret Thatcher, got her behind it all'
A: 'I remember you saying. All sounded interesting so I went into the bookshop and asked for the climate book by Crispin Tickell and they came up with this one Climactic Change and World Affairs.
B: 'Now you know what danger the world is in from Global Warming and how he is right on it.
A: 'Er, Global Warming?'
B: 'Dur, yeah, Global Warming, it's what he bangs on about all the time
A: 'Does he?'
B: 'Of course he does. What book have you been reading?'
A: 'Well, it is from the early Seventies but he is banging on about Global Cooling, really makes a strong case, world wide temperature readings, decades of dropping temperatures. Clearly makes the case there is an ice age coming.
B: 'Crispin Tickell?'
A: 'Yep'
B: 'Says the world is cooling?
A: 'Certain of it.'
B: 'Well he obviously likes to believe in world wide catastrophes, because he is now convinced that the planet is warming'
A: 'Really? That makes it a trifle difficult to believe what he says doesn't it. Maybe I should look into it a bit more, read something else?'
B: 'My mate who mentioned him to me, massive on all this environment stuff, says you shouldn't look into it yourself, because you might end up reading a deniers book by accident. Apparently there are loads of them, because publishers get big payments from oil companies to publish them, he says. He said he has a list of approved books and they are the only ones anyone should read.'
A: 'Oh, OK'
A: 'Oh yeah, I got a book by that bloke you were on about'
B: 'Eh?'
A: 'You know, the one you said was brilliant, explained all the climate change stuff. Never really understood it myself'
B: 'Oh yes, I know. So you liked it then? He really knows his stuff doesn't it? Makes it clear what is going on. Before I heard about him I didn't really have any idea about it all either, but now I have no idea how anyone can deny it.
A: 'What I liked was that he explains it all, goes through the science and how he observed it out his window, really happening'
B: 'Thing is mate, Sir Crispin Tickell is a clever bloke, he was a close advisor to Margaret Thatcher, got her behind it all'
A: 'I remember you saying. All sounded interesting so I went into the bookshop and asked for the climate book by Crispin Tickell and they came up with this one Climactic Change and World Affairs.
B: 'Now you know what danger the world is in from Global Warming and how he is right on it.
A: 'Er, Global Warming?'
B: 'Dur, yeah, Global Warming, it's what he bangs on about all the time
A: 'Does he?'
B: 'Of course he does. What book have you been reading?'
A: 'Well, it is from the early Seventies but he is banging on about Global Cooling, really makes a strong case, world wide temperature readings, decades of dropping temperatures. Clearly makes the case there is an ice age coming.
B: 'Crispin Tickell?'
A: 'Yep'
B: 'Says the world is cooling?
A: 'Certain of it.'
B: 'Well he obviously likes to believe in world wide catastrophes, because he is now convinced that the planet is warming'
A: 'Really? That makes it a trifle difficult to believe what he says doesn't it. Maybe I should look into it a bit more, read something else?'
B: 'My mate who mentioned him to me, massive on all this environment stuff, says you shouldn't look into it yourself, because you might end up reading a deniers book by accident. Apparently there are loads of them, because publishers get big payments from oil companies to publish them, he says. He said he has a list of approved books and they are the only ones anyone should read.'
A: 'Oh, OK'
Wednesday, 25 September 2013
Another Cox Up
I like Professor Brian Cox. Clever bloke with great passion. But his recent TV show isn't really that riveting. Worse, today we got the inevitable.
After quite a lead up, confirming how wonderful peer-review of scientific publications is, he gets someone else's point of view and then uses, surprise surprise, Global Warming as an example. Having said earlier that the scientific method was pretty much invented here and it is the fundamental of proper science, he then happily abandons it completely.
He told us the 'overwhelming consensus' of scientists support the idea, which is stunningly irrelevant even if it were true. Firstly, how many people believe a wrong idea has no bearing on making it right. Earth isn't the centre of the universe and the Sun doesn't go round the Earth, though once the overwhelming consensus believed otherwise. Cox knows this, so he is being deliberately disingenuous.
Unfortunately for Cox, most of his 'consensus' in this scientific age, are nothing more than political activists.
The other minor inconvenience for Cox is that, if the scientific method is applied to Global Warming theory it is disproved, so he doesn't bother. Sometimes it seems, ideology is way more important than truth or facts. To who, is never explained.
CO2 and Methane are doubtless greenhouse gases, but we do not understand the mechanism on a global scale, nor the concentrations that matter, nor how the Earth reacts to rising levels. But a group of anti-capitalists have convinced far too many people that they understand it all.
Do you doubt this assertion? Consider this; Methane is way, way worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but they cannot come up with a way of destroying Western civilisation and capitalism by demonising Methane.
These very dangerous people are free to move amongst us, because the harm they intend and do is not with a gun or a bomb, so we don't identify them for what they are. And as ever with the Left, the ability to hold two contrary positions simultaneously is in evidence with Brian Cox. He glories in the power of the scientific method and yet begs us not to apply it to a Left wing construct that means to harm us.
After quite a lead up, confirming how wonderful peer-review of scientific publications is, he gets someone else's point of view and then uses, surprise surprise, Global Warming as an example. Having said earlier that the scientific method was pretty much invented here and it is the fundamental of proper science, he then happily abandons it completely.
He told us the 'overwhelming consensus' of scientists support the idea, which is stunningly irrelevant even if it were true. Firstly, how many people believe a wrong idea has no bearing on making it right. Earth isn't the centre of the universe and the Sun doesn't go round the Earth, though once the overwhelming consensus believed otherwise. Cox knows this, so he is being deliberately disingenuous.
Unfortunately for Cox, most of his 'consensus' in this scientific age, are nothing more than political activists.
The other minor inconvenience for Cox is that, if the scientific method is applied to Global Warming theory it is disproved, so he doesn't bother. Sometimes it seems, ideology is way more important than truth or facts. To who, is never explained.
CO2 and Methane are doubtless greenhouse gases, but we do not understand the mechanism on a global scale, nor the concentrations that matter, nor how the Earth reacts to rising levels. But a group of anti-capitalists have convinced far too many people that they understand it all.
Do you doubt this assertion? Consider this; Methane is way, way worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but they cannot come up with a way of destroying Western civilisation and capitalism by demonising Methane.
These very dangerous people are free to move amongst us, because the harm they intend and do is not with a gun or a bomb, so we don't identify them for what they are. And as ever with the Left, the ability to hold two contrary positions simultaneously is in evidence with Brian Cox. He glories in the power of the scientific method and yet begs us not to apply it to a Left wing construct that means to harm us.
Monday, 23 September 2013
Climate Comedy
Here is what has happened. It is a story of real science and junk science. Ignoring earlier conclusive scientific studies, a cult formed based on the idea that certain gasses stay in the atmosphere and trap heat. This leads to a 'greenhouse' effect and raises world temperatures.
Not a wild theory and it seems to be what has happened on Venus (although no-one in the nutter factory has suggested, yet, that we did that as well). What science had to do now was observe and prove the theory. To understand the mechanism at work and refine their views accordingly. Unfortunately this wasn't what happened.
A bunch of well meaning scientists found themselves to be very attractive to a certain group. These were basically people who had never grown up, the type you see in their last years of school and at university, believers in Utopia. Basically, despite their exam results, as bright in their outlook as the beauty queen's desire for World peace.
This group soon became political and appealed to the anti-capitalists. It was seen as a way to fatally undermine Western civilisation by getting the societies to devour themselves in an angst ridden orgy of self destruction, brought about by catastrophically high taxes and subsidies for crackpot schemes (like wind turbines).
The method they used was modern, empathetic to social standards and simple. They developed computer models designed to produce the results they desired. Global Warming. As stated science observes, proves and decides. They didn't have time for that and anyway it wasn't the point; what was really happening with the climate was irrelevant, it was now about Marxist politics.
Conveniently, we were at the time going through one of the periodic rises in temperature that we see throughout history and that we have no explanation for. This became, conclusively due to Man Made Global Warming and it was so bad it was going to destroy the world. The bunch of idiots we rather carelessly elected as politicians swallowed it hook, line and sinker. They so love grand projects.
But now of course we have had 17 years of no warming, which was not predicted by these flawless and super accurate computer models. Observation, a scientific method, was disproving a badly constructed scam. To give a parallel; it does look as if the Sun goes around the Earth - we talk of it crossing the sky- and yet it doesn't. When this was proven it was accepted and has remained a known fact ever since, on the basis it can be proven any time you like.
The Global Warming scammers though would just say, 'no, you are wrong because our models say otherwise. Observation and proof have no place here'. And that is the dilemma facing the IPCC as its report, its latest weighty, densely worded yet full of comedy content will say two diametrically opposed things. On the one hand they will assert that the 'science' says that the cause of Global Warming is Man with a 95% certainty, but that they also are not sure what is causing Global Warming. Whilst additionally mentioning that there isn't any Global Warming.
And that polar ice isn't disappearing. Or the glaciers on the Himalayas. Or there is increased hurricane activity. Or the sea level is rising. Even though the models say all these things are happening and catastrophes are all around us, right now, today. The Emperor really has never had any clothes.
So there it is. A simple yet effective (for a while) scam of immense proportions, only matched in scale by the stupidity and vanity of politicians. A kid writes a computer programme that predicts disaster, only he claims it is based on real science. But he has built in an assumption; that more Man made gasses like CO2 inevitably heat up the atmosphere, something he has no scientific support for, whatsoever. It can do, but you have to understand all the interactions, not just one.
All the claims that the science is settled and that there is a consensus of scientists is ridiculous and beside the point. It was never based of empirical observation and proof of theory, it was only ever a computer model. Like saying Grand Theft Auto 5 is an accurate reproduction of real life in every way. Whereas in fact it is designed for game play, with built in attributes of violence but making the figures look as lifelike as the current state of the art computing can manage. But even a little kid knows it isn't real (though maybe we should ask a politician their view)..
Not a wild theory and it seems to be what has happened on Venus (although no-one in the nutter factory has suggested, yet, that we did that as well). What science had to do now was observe and prove the theory. To understand the mechanism at work and refine their views accordingly. Unfortunately this wasn't what happened.
A bunch of well meaning scientists found themselves to be very attractive to a certain group. These were basically people who had never grown up, the type you see in their last years of school and at university, believers in Utopia. Basically, despite their exam results, as bright in their outlook as the beauty queen's desire for World peace.
This group soon became political and appealed to the anti-capitalists. It was seen as a way to fatally undermine Western civilisation by getting the societies to devour themselves in an angst ridden orgy of self destruction, brought about by catastrophically high taxes and subsidies for crackpot schemes (like wind turbines).
The method they used was modern, empathetic to social standards and simple. They developed computer models designed to produce the results they desired. Global Warming. As stated science observes, proves and decides. They didn't have time for that and anyway it wasn't the point; what was really happening with the climate was irrelevant, it was now about Marxist politics.
Conveniently, we were at the time going through one of the periodic rises in temperature that we see throughout history and that we have no explanation for. This became, conclusively due to Man Made Global Warming and it was so bad it was going to destroy the world. The bunch of idiots we rather carelessly elected as politicians swallowed it hook, line and sinker. They so love grand projects.
But now of course we have had 17 years of no warming, which was not predicted by these flawless and super accurate computer models. Observation, a scientific method, was disproving a badly constructed scam. To give a parallel; it does look as if the Sun goes around the Earth - we talk of it crossing the sky- and yet it doesn't. When this was proven it was accepted and has remained a known fact ever since, on the basis it can be proven any time you like.
The Global Warming scammers though would just say, 'no, you are wrong because our models say otherwise. Observation and proof have no place here'. And that is the dilemma facing the IPCC as its report, its latest weighty, densely worded yet full of comedy content will say two diametrically opposed things. On the one hand they will assert that the 'science' says that the cause of Global Warming is Man with a 95% certainty, but that they also are not sure what is causing Global Warming. Whilst additionally mentioning that there isn't any Global Warming.
And that polar ice isn't disappearing. Or the glaciers on the Himalayas. Or there is increased hurricane activity. Or the sea level is rising. Even though the models say all these things are happening and catastrophes are all around us, right now, today. The Emperor really has never had any clothes.
So there it is. A simple yet effective (for a while) scam of immense proportions, only matched in scale by the stupidity and vanity of politicians. A kid writes a computer programme that predicts disaster, only he claims it is based on real science. But he has built in an assumption; that more Man made gasses like CO2 inevitably heat up the atmosphere, something he has no scientific support for, whatsoever. It can do, but you have to understand all the interactions, not just one.
All the claims that the science is settled and that there is a consensus of scientists is ridiculous and beside the point. It was never based of empirical observation and proof of theory, it was only ever a computer model. Like saying Grand Theft Auto 5 is an accurate reproduction of real life in every way. Whereas in fact it is designed for game play, with built in attributes of violence but making the figures look as lifelike as the current state of the art computing can manage. But even a little kid knows it isn't real (though maybe we should ask a politician their view)..
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Who Invented Global Warming?
I know that science often works on a number of issues simultaneously, then finds they are related in some bigger picture, but still. Berners-Lee is credited with inventing the World Wide Web so surely someone must be able to claim they invented Global Warming.
I'm guessing that it must have occurred after science had established that CO2 output by Man was insignificant in regard to affecting global temperatures (which was known in the mid-Sixties) and was probably from a group of political agitators.
But was it from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth or a similar political organisation using charity status as a front? It may have come, I suppose, quite innocently from a real environmental group with honest intentions, but they seem to only last a very short while (boson time?) as they get subsumed by politics.
Where did it come from? Was it really attached to the subject whilst it was still being investigated by scientists (as opposed to promoted by them, which is all they can achieve these days)?
I'm guessing that it must have occurred after science had established that CO2 output by Man was insignificant in regard to affecting global temperatures (which was known in the mid-Sixties) and was probably from a group of political agitators.
But was it from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth or a similar political organisation using charity status as a front? It may have come, I suppose, quite innocently from a real environmental group with honest intentions, but they seem to only last a very short while (boson time?) as they get subsumed by politics.
Where did it come from? Was it really attached to the subject whilst it was still being investigated by scientists (as opposed to promoted by them, which is all they can achieve these days)?
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
Sceptics - The Lies
People who investigate the science surrounding the earth's temperature have found that man made CO2 cannot possibly be affecting the global temperature. They are called sceptics. Another group, mainly with vested interests of one kind or another from companies taking massive subsidies to 'energy efficiency' certificate peddlers to scientists who cannot admit they said something stupid, say that the world is warming up due to the exact same thing.
People who do not see that a Marxist superstate run by an unelected elite who by way of warning came up with the Euro, is a good idea, are again called sceptics. Naturally, it is the conman who decides on the labels.
It's a bit like saying someone who won't put their hand in the fire is a sceptic.
People who do not see that a Marxist superstate run by an unelected elite who by way of warning came up with the Euro, is a good idea, are again called sceptics. Naturally, it is the conman who decides on the labels.
It's a bit like saying someone who won't put their hand in the fire is a sceptic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)