Brexit and global warming ponderings

The very simple rule of thumb to be observed in all things political: if Obama, Cameron, Helen Clark and our current politicians are for it, then the correct position is probably to be against it. That is, of course, if you value personal freedoms, actual truth and actual democracy. The current lot of elected administrations represent the class of the rich, the banking fraternity, the speculators and the property investors, who are always at an unstated war with the poor and hardworking people. It is the rich that puts the politicians in power, with campaign donations that must be repaid in favorable legislation.

By a similar token if you really value your health then if the medical profession advises a particular cancer treatment, you will know it suits them and not you, and you might best consider the opposite. And if 97% of the world's scientists tell the world to panic over something that no one can see, then it is probably a barefaced, fund-seeking lie.

Against this backdrop consider the referendum to leave the EU. The economists spell doom - therefore it is good news. Reverse everything the media say, the politicians warn of and the scientists shriek about and you have the truth.

Lord Christopher Monkton writes that it is near-certain that any new British Cabinet will take a more alert and less acquiescent stance than the present lot on the climate question. It may even occur to the new Cabinet to check whether the rate of global warming is anything like what the profiteers of doom had predicted; to count the number of downstream businesses that have been destroyed by the EU’s war on coal; and even to wonder whether the forest of windmills that infest the once beautiful England landscape are now, by possibly slowing wind at ground level, causing more flash flooding than slightly warmer weather would.

In the past, there was no point in UK politicians asking any such questions, for policies on all matters to do with the UK's own environment were set by the unelected Kommissars of Brussels. Now that UK politicians are going to have to learn to think for themselves again, rather than acting as an automated rubber stamp for directives from Brussels, perhaps Parliament will begin to calculate the enormous economic advantage that Britain will gain by abandoning all of the climate-related directives that have driven coal corporations, steelworks and aluminum works overseas, and have killed tens of thousands by making home heating altogether unaffordable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rule of 30

Here is something worth pondering. What we have been doing in the last 30 seconds is going to determine what we will do in the next second. What we have been doing in the last 30 minutes guides the next minute. What our lives have been involved in over the last 30 years generally guides us over the next year. So 30 is more or less the number for trends. When it comes to weather, 30 years is universally considered, by all meteorological stations and services, the figure to establish a national average. No national average is based on less. 30 is the rule.

So by the same token, it also means that 30 centuries of data would be required to cast an opinion on world weather trends over the next century. 30 centuries worth, that is, 3000 years of daily historical weather records for every town in the world. Have we got that much archived back-data? Of course not. 30 is the stated baseline of all of mainstream meteorology, Therefore there is no way the Al Gore devotees who say the next century is going to alarmingly heat up can remotely know what they are talking about. Verifiable weather temperature data only goes back to around 1950. Automatic stations, which remove human bias, were installed in the 1980s. So we only have about 30 years worth of good data for most of the world. That gets us some guide over THE NEXT YEAR as to potential trends. End of story.

BUT..the government scientist on the TV news last night said we are approaching a tipping point in global warming and climate change, after which it will be "too late". What did she base this on? Past data? No, there isn't any. This lady scientist looked normal and intelligent, a product of our fine university system, designed to produce intelligent people, which we taxpayers pay for. Looks can be so deceiving. Because what would this "tipping point" look like? Tipping from what to what? She didn't say. How will we know it has arrived? She didn't say. What does 'too late' mean? She didn't say. What she didn't say outweighed what she said (now there's a tipping point).

And if the world gets warmer, why is that a bad thing? If less elderly die from the cold, if homeless people don't suffer as much sleeping outdoors, if less people are off work due to colds and flus thus enabling greater productivity for our economy, if agricultural production increases due to warmer pastures and we can better feed the poor and hungry, if there is more rain due to increased evaporation which deals to drought areas, if summer holiday weather of basking sunshine gets longer and winter frosts are less severe, if we see more flowers for longer periods, if increased rain brings higher rivers and more electricity from hydrodams, making electricity more affordable, what for goodness sake is the problem?????

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warming the world?

A correspondent has contributed an article worth discussing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

This is the kind of false propaganda NASA, Goddard etc put out to attract government funding in the billions of dollars. I'm afraid you have been sucked in. All the graphs are fiction. Temperatures were not gathered exactly before the 1990s, when there was no digital technology. Glass thermometers could not read tenths. Before the 1950s in most locations there were not enough thermometers even in a small area to verify each other, so the readings are suspect. And there is no "global" temperature, and no way to determine it, when at any one moment one hemisphere is in winter when the other one is in summer, and one is in darkness and the other in bright sunshine.

I have 6 sensitive digital thermometers positioned around my outdoor deck - they all read differently within a space of 10 meters. They can differ by up to 2 or 3 degrees at any one moment, and more if one receives passing wind gusts or shade. That would be the same for every 10 meters of every house and garden - I am certain I am not the world's exception. If you buy a packet of seeds, read the back. It says plant this in the warm part of your garden. So it is accepted, and obvious, that EVERY garden has a warm and cool part, also a breezy and calm part, also a more moist and drier area. So how many gardens in how many cities do you think there are in the world, each with different conditions? So what would be the "global" reading?? It is utter and puerile nonsense.

Also, there are only about 3000 temperature gathering stations around the world, and there were a few thousand more before the climate summits began, but they closed down the ones that showed no temperature increase, fiddling the books, to justify a case for global warming that skeptics could not go to and point out the inconsistencies. Just google closing down of cooler stations. People only live on 1.6% of the earth's surface. There are only instruments where the metropolitan people are, which leaves 98% of the world uninvestigated. There never have been thermometers all over the vast oceans, on the ice caps and glaciers, on the uninhabited islands, on the craggy mountain ranges, on the deserts, on the bogs, swamps and marshes, and on the rain forests. Nor where poor peasant farmers live, in places like Mongolia, northern Russia, India, Indonesia, etc all very far from real civilisation. 

Also consider this: those who get the funding want to you to believe there is a problem, because you as a taxpayer will ultimately supply them with money. You will never read that there is a natural cycle, natural causes, and that the media and scientists are ripping you off. What would they gain by printing that?