Saturday, April 19, 2008
For the low paid worker opening his or [more likely] her wage slip, they will not see that their income tax has been abolished. The poorest workers in the land will see that their income tax has been doubled. They will see their income tax increased by 100%!!!
THAT is what labour truly think of the working poor.
The media ought to call this the DOUBLING of the 10p tax band.
Labour, the 100% tax increase party. The screw the poor party. The nasty3 party
Remember this when you go to vote.
So that bastion of labour ideals, Ed Balls, the education secretary of the party created out of the sweat and grit of millions of the hard-working poor, has nailed the final nail in the coffin of the labour party's dedication to the poor. When responding to labour MP's alledged concern for the working poor that will be hit hardest by having their income tax doubled at a time of run-away inflation in the fuel and food markets and the fear of labour councillors that are looking at being thrown out of office by the very working poor that they claim to represent, said:
"The efforts of local councillors and shadow leaders should not be undermined by this kind of indulgent nonsense."
INDULGENT NONSENSE? From the minister who brought you "SO WHAT?" in response to the poor being hit hardest by the collapsing mortgage markets and increasing taxes and runaway inflation...
The hard-working poor, the backbone of this nation, are really struggling and are facing massive difficulties. The labour leadership's response? So what? To care for the working poor is "indulgent nonesense"
Remember that when you go and vote.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
How many national elections has Brown or HIS labour party actually won? Oh yeah, NONE!
In fact since taking over the office of Prime Minister, Brown has scrapped election manifesto promises without any democratic consultation or electoral mandate. To make his "democratic" credentials even worse, the central election promise that he overturned was to hold a democratic referendum on the future of this country regarding it's electoral accountability in law-making vis-a-vis rule from the unelected EU!
Even Mugabe has more democratic credentials than Brown. And don't forget that Blair's labour party was "elected" by only 22% of the adult population. Even then postal vote fraud on behalf of the labour party was rife and that was in a system in which labour were already gifted a 66 seat majority before any counting of votes started. If labour and tory had received exactly the same number of votes, the constituency boundaries were drawn up in such a way as to gift labour a 66 seat in-built majority.
Given all this built in bias, the vote fraud and the result showing that only 22% of adults that voted for Blair's labour party on the understanding that he would serve a full third term, AND the promise that even if the voters disagreed with labour on the EU, that was not an election matter as they were promised a referendum. Then this hardly represents any kind of democratic mandate for Blair, and no democratic mandate for Brown at all.
Even Mugabe's Presidential result (an alleged and suspected loss) has probably secured a greater level of popular support than labour attained under Blair in 2005. It is only our very biased and undemocratic system that let Labour into power at all. I suspect that although Mugabe would definitely lose, he would still get more than 22% in an honest election.
It is about time that the BBC was a lot more honest about the (current) total and absolute lack of democratic accountability or democratic legitimacy in this country, before they attack another nation which, ironically, is actually MORE democratic than here.
Apparently the global warming zealots have decided that if they can’t destroy the facts, they will destroy anyone who questions them.Dr. S. Fred Singer is an accomplished scientist whose outspoken questioning of global warming earned him one of the most outrageous media smear pieces ever aired. Dr. Singer’s accomplishments are too lengthy to list, but they include the invention of the instrument to measure stratospheric ozone.
Among his many prominent positions, he was the first director of the National Weather Satellite Center and held key administrative posts in the EPA, DOT and Department of the Interior.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Well, Did the Tories:
Lie repeatedly to invade a sovereign nation that was no threat, in clear breach of Geneva conventions?
Spy on and invade everyone's privacy to a degree that has never been seen in this country before, building a police surveillance state?
Lose all the private, personal financial data of all parents in the UK?
Fill our prisons with OAP council tax protesters whilst letting out criminals and convicted terrorists early for lack of space?
Break a central promise of their last manifesto to grant a referendum on the EU treaty? Whilst overseeing the break-up of the UK into powerless regions to be ruled by the unelected EU oligarchy?
Sell our nation's gold at an all time low and squander the proceeds?
Squander the tax revenue from private pension funds?
Or double the income taxes of the poorest workers in the land whilst food and fuel inflation sky rockets?
The Tories were NEVER this bad!
Monday, April 14, 2008
This shows that the FTSE as a measure of British companies worth over the last 24 years. A gradual improvement during the Conservative administration punctuated by the 1987 crash, but that was a rapid fall followed by an immediate return to a steady growth.
Under Labour there has what can only be described as a boom and bust on steroids. After 11 years of labour mis-rule the FTSE is now barely above what it was when they came to power in 1997. Allowing for real inflation, that is quite a big loss in value in real terms.
From 2000 the FTSE went on a downward spiral for 3 years. NOTE this stared over a year before the terrorist attacks on New York that closed the NYSE and actually, the stocks recovered for a while after 9/11 before collapsing further as shown below:
The FTSE fell and recovered for a few months, before continuing the slide that started in 2000.
The Boom and Bust economic policy employed by labour has been continuously mis-reported by a media enthralled and seemingly mesmerised by Tony Blair.
It has only taken 9 months of the Brown Government for the spell to be broken and for people to see what I have been seeing since 1997.
Labour are bereft of economic competence and have been destroying the economy for years.
Now Gordon Brown is DOUBLING the tax on the poorest workers. He has NOT aboliched the 10p rate of tax, he has DOUBLED it!
He has no ideas left, he squandered the golden economic legacy of the Tory years, he has stolen and squandered the value in private pensions and he has squandered the nation's gold reserves at a time when Gold's price was at rock bottom.
There is only one party who has shown a boom and bust economic mis-management of our economy and that is the Labour Party. This is NOT a recommendation of the Conservative party, merely accurate critisism of the Labour party, and a comparison with the previous Tory administration that was rightly booted out of power in 1997.
It is just such a terrible shame that it was the disaster that is Labour, and not a PRO UK party, that took over in 1997.
However the current credit squeeze is a little different as it seems to be the big banks that are getting hit first and hardest.
It could just be that the big banks have been "played" at their own game and some derivative managers have retired on a fortune at their expense?
Here is how the game has been played.
The smaller mortgage and realty based banks in the US had been lending sub-prime to self assessed debtors for a while, due to ridiculously low interest rates a few years ago.
These smaller banks realised that they could lend out lots of money to people who could not afford to repay and these banks didn't have to worry about re-payments as they immediately sold on the debt to other money market types who then sliced and diced these "worthless" loans and sold them onto the big banks as secure financial instruments with a high value rating.
These middlemen took their cut and retired very very rich too.
The big banks fractional reserve banking relies on the worthless "money" that they create out of thin air in the form of loans actually being re-paid for their scam to continue to work.
This credit squeeze might not be the standard market contraction that the banks deliberately create occasionally to repossess tangible assets at a fraction of their worth, and to put political pressure on world leaders to capitulate to the banker's demands. As in the 1920's crash that enabled the Federal Reserve Banks (Via the US Government) to steal all of the nation's private gold. Nobody knows what has happened to that gold since.
The reason? The big Federal Reserve banks could not have private gold in existence that could rival the worthless I.O.U's known as federal reserve notes as a means of measuring wealth for the masses.
But what could the big bankers want now? They already, literally, own everything. Their plans for utter and total global domination are well on track, and money, as in cash, folding notes and coins that can literally be in the possession of individuals, outside of the banks control, are soon to be eliminated. All money will be transacted electronically at the whim of the bankers before too long. And anyway, folding money is not effected by this credit squeeze.
So what is the purpose of the credit squeeze if it IS the big banks behind it?
After all, why would the banker's be demanding anything from the world leaders who currently pay fealty to them now?
I think that these banks have been played for billions maybe even a trillion or two and now the great scam, the greatest and largest financial fraud in the history of mankind which is the fractional reserve banking of a fiat currency, may be about to fall.
There is very real desperation in the world's banking fraternity at the moment and it is only going to get a lot worse.
But it could be the very thing that is needed to remove mankind from the banker's control web and allow us to truly evolve.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Yes, this information is deliberately with-held by the BBC and others who are actively censoring the truth under pressure from the global warming cult.
This is leading to the following effects being felt globally:
World grain, corn and rice prices at an all time high, mass starvation imminent, huge areas of ancient natural forests eradicated forever, with the Orang-utans on the verge of extinction, all to make room for fuel crops. Bio-fuel has been found to be much more harmful to the environment and have a greater carbon footprint than regular fuel and yet the clamour to produce it is causing enormous and growing problems for the world. Taxes and fuel costs rising alarmingly and the entire global economy put under severe threat. as remedies costing trillions of dollars are being demanded to cut CO2 by 60 - 80% by 2050.
This shows what happens when there is a knee-jerk reaction to dogmatic misunderstanding of complex systems (and a healthy dose of greed)! We run the risk of wrecking the global economy, implementing damaging environmental policies that would cause greater environmental harm and starve the third world in order to avert "global warming" at a time when temperatures are currently falling precipitously.
How dare the global warming alarmists tell us that there is consensus on global warming when they do not even know how and why clouds form and behave at different levels of altitude, and how rainfall is created and how it effects global climate? They don't know how the sun effects the climate, they don't know a heck of a lot about how the climate works and many of these important sub climate systems are performing incorrectly in their computer models or they are omitted entirely.
Yet Al Gore "claims" that there is NO DOUBT????
Nonsense. The fact is, their models are WRONG.
The only place where evidence can be found for CO2 driving global warming to some mystical tipping point is in their computer models, (and that is only in a tiny minority of models too). NONE of which predicted the near decade of temperature stasis followed by a dramatic fall in temperatures that has, in reality, happened to the only real model of the climate we have.
The theoretical models have many minor flaws and one major fundamental flaw in them. The tropospheric heat island that the theories predict should be growing (and creating a positive feedback loop) is actually rather conspicuous by its absence in the real world. It is NOT there. Without this heat island, all the other mechanisms of man-made global warming cannot occur. The NASA Aqua satellite data shows clearly that the climate regulates itself. That is why the earth has not fried to a crisp at times in the distant past when CO2 was at far higher concentrations in the atmosphere than today. That is why we get ice ages and then come out of the ice ages. All natural and without man's help.
In simple language, there is NO Significant Anthropogenic Global Warming. NONE! That is why the earth is currently cooling!
Yes CO2 does effect climate, yes it is a green house gas, but without the heat island high in the troposphere, there cannot be a cataclysmic infinite positive feedback loop. Instead we see a law of diminishing returns. The CO2 is effective as concentrations rise and then as the more CO2 is added, the less of an effect it has. Like painting over glass with thin paint. The first coat has a major effect of cutting out light. the second coat cuts out some more, the third a bit more, but the fourth and subsequent coats have no more effect.
So the raise in CO2 we have seen will raise temperatures slightly. (the vast majority of the raise in CO2 has been natural anyway) Maybe by a maximum of 2 degrees over 2 centuries then the climate regulates itself.
2 degrees is the target that the EU wishes to stall the temperature at, or rather, since global temperatures have dropped by half a degree in the last year, perhaps that should be 2.5 degrees.
Well it seems that we may not even get to a 2 degree rise. and certainly we are not going to exceed it and that will happen without humans taking any action whatsoever.
The EU needs to get on board with the latest science, because otherwise, we are going to spend TRILLIONS and cause massive disruption to our way of life, for no gain whatsoever.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is a natural gas.
Global politicians should be delighted, global catastrophe had been averted and we didn't even have to do anything about it. Yippee?
No, the alarmists need a great Satan. It is not a scientific thing, it is a human condition thing. The leaders always need something to scare the followers with. You know, to keep them in-line. The followers need something to believe in. Something they themselves cannot control, something bigger than themselves, so that they can maintain trust in the leaders and allow someone else to make decisions for them, but it must be something that they can participate in, so they can have a sense of belonging.
Religion does not work in the west as a great fearful motivator anymore, the fear of communism has gone away, science has taken over.
Without global warming to unite the globe in slavery to our benevolent democratic global leaders, what is there?
Oh yeah, "human induced climate disruption!!!"
What? It's snowing in Greece? darn those pesky humans!!!
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
In December last year, at the UN conference in Bali, I heard Viscount Monckton present a paper prepared by himself, the Australian Dr David Evans and our own Dr Vincent Gray (who were at Bali, too) that showed while the IPCC models predict that greenhouse gases would produce an extensive "hot spot" in the upper troposphere over the tropics, the satellite measurements show no such hotspots have appeared.
Monckton and Evans found a large part of this discrepancy is the result of some basic errors in the IPCC's assessment of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. When they applied their revised factor to the effect of greenhouse gases, the temperature rise was about a third of that predicted by the IPCC.
So by late last year we not only knew IPCC forecasts of atmospheric global warming were wrong; we were beginning to understand why they are wrong.
The key issue in this debate is whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases or natural solar activities are the prime drivers of climate change. A closely related argument is whether the climate is highly sensitive to carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Put together, these uncertainties raise doubts as to whether the IPCC models can accurately forecast the climate over the long term. If they cannot, then we have to wonder how much damage we should risk doing to the world's economies in attempts to manage the possibly adverse effects of these "predictions."
The findings that the predicted "tropical hot spots" do not exist are important because the IPCC models assume these hot spots will be formed by increased evaporation from warmer oceans leading to the accumulations of higher concentrations of water vapour in the upper atmosphere, and thereby generating a positive feedback reinforcing the small amount of warming that can be caused by CO2 alone.
Atmospheric scientists generally agree that as carbon dioxide levels increase there is a law of "diminishing returns" - or more properly "diminishing effects" - and that ongoing increases in CO2 concentration do not generate proportional increases in temperature. The common analogy is painting over window glass. The first layers of paint cut out lots of light but subsequent layers have diminishing impact.
So, you might be asking, why the panic? Why does Al Gore talk about temperatures spiraling out of control, causing mass extinctions and catastrophic rises in sea-level, and all his other disastrous outcomes when there is no evidence to support it?
The alarmists argue that increased CO2 leads to more water vapour - the main greenhouse gas - and this provides positive feedback and hence makes the overall climate highly sensitive to small increases in the concentration of CO2.
Consequently, the IPCC argues that while carbon dioxide may well "run out of puff" the consequent evaporation of water vapour provides the positive feedback loop that will make anthropogenic global warming reach dangerous levels.
This assumption that water vapour provides positive feedback lies behind the famous "tipping point," which nourishes Al Gore's dreams of destruction, and indeed all those calls for action now - "before it is too late!" But no climate models predict such a tipping point.
However, while the absence of hot spots has refuted one important aspect of the IPCC models we lack a mechanism that fully explains these supposed outcomes. Hence the IPCC, and its supporters, have been able to ignore this "refutation."
So by the end of last year, we were in a similar situation to the 19th century astronomers, who had figured out that the sun could not be "burning" its fuel - or it would have turned to ashes long ago - but could not explain where the energy was coming from. Then along came Einstein and E=mc2.
Hard to explain
Similarly, the climate sceptics have had to explain why the hotspots are not where they should be - not just challenge the theory with their observations.
This is why I felt so lucky to be in the right place at the right time when I heard Roy Spencer speak at the New York conference on climate change in March. At first I thought this was just another paper setting out observations against the forecasts, further confirming Evans' earlier work.
But as the argument unfolded I realised Spencer was drawing on observations and measurements from the new Aqua satellites to explain the mechanism behind this anomaly between model forecasts and observation. You may have heard that the IPCC models cannot predict clouds and rain with any accuracy. Their models assume water vapour goes up to the troposphere and hangs around to cook us all in a greenhouse future.
However, there is a mechanism at work that "washes out" the water vapour and returns it to the oceans along with the extra CO2 and thus turns the added water vapour into a NEGATIVE feedback mechanism.
The newly discovered mechanism is a combination of clouds and rain (Spencer's mechanism adds to the mechanism earlier identified by Professor Richard Lindzen called the Iris effect).
The IPCC models assumed water vapour formed clouds at high altitudes that lead to further warming. The Aqua satellite observations and Spencer's analysis show water vapour actually forms clouds at low altitudes that lead to cooling.
Furthermore, Spencer shows the extra rain that falls from these clouds cools the underlying oceans, providing a second negative feedback to negate the CO2 warming.
This has struck the alarmists like a thunderbolt, especially as the lead author of the IPCC chapter on feedback has written to Spencer agreeing that he is right!
There goes the alarmist neighbourhood!
The climate is not highly sensitive to CO2 warming because water vapour is a damper against the warming effect of CO2.
That is why history is full of Ice Ages - where other effects, such as increased reflection from the ice cover, do provide positive feedback - while we do not hear about Heat Ages. The Medieval Warm Period, for example, is known for being benignly warm - not dangerously hot.
We live on a benign planet - except when it occasionally gets damned cold.
While I have done my best to simplify these developments they remain highly technical and many people distrust their own ability to assess competing scientific claims. However, in this case the tipping point theories are based on models that do not include the effects of rain and clouds.
The new Nasa Aqua satellite is the first to measure the effects of clouds and rainfall. Spencer's interpretation of the new data means all previous models and forecasts are obsolete. Would anyone trust long-term forecasts of farm production that were hopeless at forecasting rainfall?
The implications of these breakthroughs in measurement and understanding are dramatic to say the least. The responses will be fun to watch.
Alarmists, 'experts' face a new inconvenient truth
Christopher Pearson, of The Australian newspaper (March 22), has written up a remarkable ABC television interview with Dr Jennifer Marohasy, a senior fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs, a Melbourne-based think tank.
Dr Marohasy says the impact of the Aqua satellite and Spencer's interpretation of the data and prompts the reporter to conclude with some pungent observations of his own:
"If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
"A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
"With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.
RAIN CHECK: Spencer's analyses based on new satellite data pour cold rain on warming theory
"The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way toward prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon-footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.
"The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate 'climate refugees."
Monday, April 07, 2008
"In March 1929 there was a little meeting in New York. After that meeting, Bernard Baruch sells out [of stocks], the Rockefellers sell out, the Kennedys sell out, all of the big bankers sell out. The big people were out [of the stock market] by August. Then the Federal Reserve cut the money supply four times in a month. There were four drastic reductions in the money supply.
"Then one day in October the banks called all of their loans on all of their margins at the same minute. Every bank in the money desk - and these were call loans, callable on demand. People had their stock on margin, borrowing 90%. Now they went to the banks and the banks weren't lending, they were calling. They run to the market and everyone's trying to sell. The banks had shut the money off. The call desks were closed. The money desk shut down....and all these people were running around trying to sell because they had to sell 10% down and they were wiped out. All of the people who weren't on the inside were gone."
Some things never change, it would seem.
Now a little economic lesson:
The economy grows when the banks lend more money into circulation than is needed simply to repay the loans already lent + interest on those loans.Remember this when your home/business is being repossessed/foreclosed. Then you know who really is to blame!
The economy shrinks when the banks stop lending as much as is needed to repay the loans + interest.
The state of the economy is entirely down to the banks. Simple really.
(The same 10 years of cooling that NO SINGLE COMPUTER MODEL MANAGED TO PREDICT!)
Rather than debate science, evidence, or truth, these alarmist cultists are trying to censor the truth and stifle debate and opinion.
They are Just like the King Canutes and the flat earthers rolled into one.
They have lost the argument and should just fuck off and die and let the rest of us get on with our lives in peace. They think humans are acting like a virus and are killing the planet??? Fine, do something about it and KILL YOURSELVES you worthless, lying, fanatical fuckwits!
I am becoming more and more convinced that AGW is a major scam and is completely Bullshit. the AGW alarmist cultist's own behaviour is the major driver in this opinion shift. IF they had any decent, un-discredited evidence left, I would listen. But they don't. so they should just fuck off!
Friday, April 04, 2008
Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
OK so THIS year's La Nina, means that global temperatures have not risen since 1998???
And the alarmists wonder why people are not taken in by the global warming hysteria???
the article continues:
But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.
OK so this means "Yeah OK, we KNOW the earth is now cooling, BUT the temperature WILL rise again at some point in the future, so keep paying your carbon taxes and let us monitor all your activities, just in case you are trying to destroy the planet, you viral human scum!"
The only problem with what these "weather forecasters" is saying is, the fact that this season's La Nina started AFTER the cooling started.
According to the NASA Aqua satellite system and the Argo sub-sea system of global temperature monitoring, the cooling has been happening for some years. Other data contradicts this, and shows the year to 2007 as the second warmest year since 1998. The problem is, we are not getting a total accurate picture of global temperature yet, and much of the data measured has been measured in places different to earlier years and these locations may be in warmer places, regardless of global warming, thus the figures could be misleading.