Monday, December 14, 2009

More Details on Global Warming Lies

Here is a more detailed discussion on why too much action on Global Warming is probably not a good thing. I realise that I risk Gordon Brown calling me a flat-earther by publishing this but hey I can bear it! See also Global Warming Article

Firstly within WRITTEN History there have been warm periods such as and possibly even warmer than the current 'peak' year of 1998. Yes thats right 1998 was the warmest year on direct scientific record and not any of the later years. this is because of glo9bal cooling (but we will come to that).

The ‘medieval warm period’ was a 350 year stretch of good weather that started around 1000AD. Writers at the time, and archeological evidence suggests that the globe was far warmer then than it is now.

The best and most documented two examples, supported by writers of the time and archeaology that show this are:

Red wine grapes were regularly grown all across Southern England. Yes we do have vinyards in Southern England now - just a few and in very sheltered spots. The grapes they grow are particularly hardy varieties which have only been in existance since the 17th century. Here we are talking about all varieties of grapes being grown all over the South, up as far as Watford. Try that now and you would get a withered stalk and no fruit, even with the more hardy varieties.

The Vikings were farming in Greenland and the Shetlands. Growing crops in areas that are now permafrost and and growing crops we find difficult on mainland Britain due to climate today. So at least we know for certain that Greenland was far warmer then than it has been since.

All this is very inconvenient to Global Warming believers because there were no cars or factories pumping out greenhouse gases in 1000AD yet the Earth still warmed. Confusingly some tree-ring data eliminates the medieval warmth altogether, while others reflect it.

Secondly the most powerful variable which is discounted by the IPCC computer models is the Solar output. Why is this disregarded? Simple - until we had satellites we had no way to measure it and trying to find an indicator that can archeaologically measure it (say in AD85) did not work. So we should just ignore it right?

No we cant. Tiny variations in many parameters input (down in the range of 0.0001%) have been shown to affect these computer models considerably. The Solar variations that we normally measure in the 11 year cycle are as high as 0.1% - thats 1000 times higher than the sensitivity threshhold of the model. There is historical evidence for much wider variation than this in sunspot records that have been kept by Solar observers since around 1650 AD.
The number of sunspots on the Sun’s surface is roughly proportional to total solar output. One well known dip in activity, the Maunder Minimum, occured from 1650–1700 and may have influenced Europe’s little ice age. Since then, sunspot number have risen and fallen in a regular 11-year cycle. An 11-year running average shows only the long-term variation, which shows a rise in total sunspot numbers from 1700 until today (ie the sun has grown more active).


Thirdly we have the vested interests of Governments and politicians. At the moment due to peak oil and oil availability issues it is likely that many, if not all of us, will have to give up on car use. Who wants to be the first politician to ban motoring? Send the army round to collect your Mercedes SLK and scrap it? Nobody.

How much nicer to say 'Look the Scientists say you should stop using your cars because we will all die and the seas will rise and a plague of frogs will infest your armpits.' This way you will give up your own cars willingly. Unfortunately it is another cynical con.

Fourthly Global Cooling. Yes thats right Cooling. The suppressed data that has emerged which was not included in the climate reports is a tree ring study, studying growth over 1950-2000 period which shows overall a remarkable DROP in the mean global temperature. So why are the polar cap ice packs melting? Well the other big variable climatologists ignore is the amount of wobble the earth has on its axis. This is another cyclical thing - the bigger the wobble the more of the earths ice caps gets exposed to the sun. You guessed it - we are on a peak value of wobble at the moment! In addition the propagandists have only focussed on one side of the issue.

Antarctic Ice Is Growing And Thickening! It has been consistently doing so for at least 30 years now. Western Antarctica has shed several ice shelves over time, but Eastern Antarctica has grown greatly in the same time. The climate propagandists ignore the East antarctic.

Fifthly the measurements made by the modern equipment is more unreliable than indirect methods such as Tree ring dating and Ice core sampling.

WHAT I hear you exclaim. Impossible. But no - the scientists shot themselves in the foot again.

The problem is that in fact readings from thermometers or electronic ‘thermistors’ are open to interpretation. This is because the sites of weather stations that were once open countryside become built up areas, so trapping heat, and the type of equipment used changes over time. These anomalies between readings need to be ‘adjusted’.

But can we trust the way such ‘adjustments’ are made?

Recently there was a re-analysis of the data from the past 130 years in Darwin, Australia. This suggested that average temperatures had risen there by about two degrees Celsius. However, the raw data had been ‘adjusted’ in a series of abrupt upward steps by exactly the same amount: without the adjustment, the Darwin temperature record would have stayed level.

In 2007 records across America were examined. It was found that between 1999 and 2007, the US equivalent of the Met Office had changed the way it adjusted old data. The result was to make the Thirties seem cooler, and the years since 1990 much warmer. Previously, the warmest year since records began in America had been 1934.

Sixthly the main Global Warming hypothesis rests only on the work of around 60 scientists and reviewers and not the 4000 often claimed. By contrast a petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it (but one presumes not President Obama).

So it looks like we should all be careful before we let the politicians pass the buck this time.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Death of a Special Relationship

It has just become apparent to those who watch such things that Britain has totally slipped off the US agenda.

In fact all the speeches Obama has made since becoming President - and in all the speeches he made when campaigning - neither Britain nor the special relationship have been mentioned once.

This despite Britain having been America's most staunch ally in both the Gulf Wars and the Afghan War. He would rather suck up to those European countries that now hold the power in Europe (France and Germany) but do nothing to support America.

Could this be anything to do with a fear that Britain may demand its share of Iraqi oil and Afghan mineral wealth? After all why else have we supported America? Did they help us in the Falklands war which was right on their doorstep? No. they they stayed neutral leaving us to fight a war 3000 miles away by ourselves. Next time America wish to play policeman let them ask the French and Germans for help and see what happens.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Public confidence in banks drops


It seems that many of us are keeping hold of £50 notes under mattresses and in home safes because we have lost confidence in banks it emerged yesterday.

The Bank of England said that due to 'quantative easing' the total value of its notes in circulation has soared while the use of high value notes in transactions is falling. The gap is huge - there are 40million more £50 notes in circulation than two years ago but the banks are actually seeing fewer of them back through the system. Pundits say say that this is prima facie evidence of a loss of faith in financial institutions.

I say that given the fact that many savings accounts now only offer less than 1% interest that we lose almost nothing by keeping our cash at home instead of in the bank. Banks have recently threatened to charge as much as £2.50 per cash machine transaction, this will only increase the number of people who wish to keep their money outside the banking system.

This could be the birth of a new trend, With cheques not accepted at so many places and people reluctant to use credit cards now that the laws have changed and the card agreements have 'real teeth' perhaps people will start to see banks as un-necessary luxuries. Maybe the new pattern will be to withdraw all cash not required to cover direct debits at the beginning of the month and spend cash throughout the month, tucking what is left into their piggy banks.

If this happens then the scope for banks to make profit from running current accounts will all but disappear hitting the bankers right where it hurts - in the wallet!

Saturday, December 5, 2009

How we stole 40K from youf family ...and you never even realised it.

Every week there seem to be fresh new disturbing revelations about the original banking crisis. God knows what the new Dubai collapse will bring. the latest revelation is that the UK government in fact committed to a bail out of a massive 850 billion. That is £13800 for every adult in the UK - an average of £40K per family!

This was done without any consultation purely on Gordon Browns say so. Because the banking crisis was NOT in fact as bad as the bankers had led the government to believe the total cost of the bailout will be a mere 131 billion by the end of this year. So that will only be £6200 per family... phew well thats all right then!

The bad news is despite you spending your six grand each on the bankers this year they are still underperforming and being unwilling to lend. Both RBS and LLoyds are still unlikely to meet their business lending targets for this year, being too busy speculating on foreign currency deals to ensure staff bonuses are paid. Oh yes - the bankers pay is not going to be altered one bit by their failure. They are still going to be paid 'sucess bonuses' which in some cases are worth more than their salaries.

It has now been revealed that the treasury is also paying some leading bankers directly in addition to funds they receive from their employers! Why? Because they gave advice on how to save their own skins. You might think that this will not be much - but no its about half a nuclear submarine - £107 million to you and me. This includes millions of pounds in...aargh sucess bonuses ... and many contractors who raked in an astonishing 200K per month each for a few months at the start of the crisis. In other words the treasury did not know what to do (allow at least one of the banks to collapse and totally nationalise the others) and paid the bankers to save their own jobs (recommend the government guarantees them for up to 850 Billion and that will be all right then). A predictable outcome.

Why can the Treasury not do the job we pay them to do without having their hands held?