Saturday, 2 May 2015

They lied to you about climate change

Update of an earlier entry:

Imagine your lords and masters, who you trusted and believed looked after you, admitted they were lying, cheating and generally openly ripping you off. How would you feel, and how would you react?

In fact, I have collected records of this happening for over 40 years, it is on the record officially and totally ignored by the media. Open confessions, the criminal pleading guilty and handing themself over to the authorities, saves millions in court fees and lawyers, and keeping a jury busy for weeks or months. Official enquiries into government wrongdoings take years, and if those involved simply fessed up and their racket was closed down it would save billions or more.

Well they have. Over and over again. But people didn't notice. Just show them this and they will.

The roots of today's phoney environmental movement (as opposed to the genuine one, which is starved of funds as a direct result) actually mainly lie in the German Volkisch movement of the 19th century, which grew into Nazism and the Eugenics movement, reducing the numbers of mankind based on racial purity. You can learn about this by searching, and suffice to say Unesco, the relevant unit of the UN was set up by the communist eugenicist Julian Huxley in 1946, who went on to found the environmentally extreme WWF in 1963 under the original guise of saving wild animals, much like the Mafia front businesses who run their drugs and prostitution behind restaurants and dry cleaners. Yes, they provide a genuine service, but only to hide their real business activities.

But despite the lack of media coverage from the 1970s onwards, every so often, mainly as they are proud of their views and like the Nazis before them believe they are right so have no reason to hide their true intentions, they simply come straight out with it. This bunch of eugenicists, bottom feeders, rent seekers and general no goodniks including ex politicians and top businessmen, many of whom can be read from the list of Bilderberg members, the only element of their meetings besides the location which is not secret, believe they have so much power they can admit whatever they like and nothing will stop them carrying on.

This of course is wrong. Illusions work by consent and confusion. Take both away and they vanish. In this case the illusion is broken already, as these creeps have spoken openly, clearly and directly about their actions, and if even 10% of the people were to hear it the consent would be withdrawn. Who would pay huge green taxes once they were told the entire basis of global warming was a means to create one world government? The Hegelian dialectic, create a problem where the solution is your diabolical policy, is one which has worked since the beginning of governments. Church indulgences, sacrificing virgins, you name it, they make you believe suffering today to save a possible disaster in the future is a winning formula of dishonesty. It's entirely down to the idiots who accept it, believing you can both predict the climate a hundred or more years ahead, and do something to change it. And all the other crap that goes with it, such as ignoring thousands of years of history of what science called 'climate optimum' (the warm bits) and believing a slight increase in temperature will be a bad thing, unlike an ice age which kills millions of people every time.

But rather than join the battle with the errors of science, ie the trial, which will never take place as by the time the temperature has started to fall our money and rights will all be down the toilet, just take the guilty pleas and chuck the lot of them in prison, which may even be too good for them. Disagree? Ask the African farmers who were turfed off their land to burn their crops for biofuel. They wouldn't.

We begin with Margaret Mead's statement of future plans from 1974's Endangered Atmosphere conference.

"What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"

Besides the majority of ordinary people who accept such statements on face value, I have seen activists who (like the relatives of organised criminals) have tried to undo the meaning of this. As a result, I'll pick it apart to defuse any attempts to claim it does not mean exactly what it says, although of course subsequent statements by others are impossible to interpret in any other ways. His main plank was 'artificial' meant man made. Yes, really. Although while he meant the problems were man made (which they aren't, but we are accused of), the statements and claims were, which they are, including the incredible adjustments taking flat and random temperature trends and making them tilt in the recent period to all look the same. Having learnt some statistics adjustments are of two types, random error corrections, which tend to zero as they cancel out false positives and negatives, and bias, which cancels out readings too high or low. In fact temperature errors are a combination of both, but all bias is the other way, from urban heat islands, so no results should be higher than the raw figures. Yet nearly all of them are They twisted the graphs here

Before I go on, I will also point out the 'solution' to global warming, involving money as per, is carbon trading. I recognised this and traced it back to its roots, which became very familiar as developed by the fraudulent company Enron, before they were caught. So even the 'solutions' (ie give us your money) are as bent as a bunch of bananas, as until they became legal and mandatory, they were an instrument of criminal fraud. They are still fraudulent, why, because a court said so, but they have been legalised. So we are being ripped off whether or not the governments are actually guilty of a crime as well.

 The UN are in charge of world global warming policy, mainly set by the 1992 Kyoto Protocol. Yet a few times their own spokesmen have stated it is not really genuine. From the gradually more familiar quote from their economist Ottmar Edenhoffer in 2010:

" must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

which was not a rogue statement but affirmed in 2015 by Christina Figueres, who again repeated global warming was simply the tool they used to destroy capitalism. It's that simple.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution"

Not a word about polar bears, ice caps or sea levels. No, it's about business and money extraction.

She said it

Such a philosophy has even been published in a free book available online by the Club of Rome in 1991, 'The First Global Revolution'

The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself." 

They are not a bunch of unknown nutcases, but similar in personnel to the Bilderbergers and include the Dalai Lama, who lectures on the dangers of climate change, as now does the Pope. Why would they do that for any other reason besides believing it, unless they trace their claims back to their actual sources here.

Many of these people not in it for the money, but because they believe mankind is a cancer on the planet "The earth has a cancer, the cancer is man" Club of Rome, 1974

Yes, they said it

Again, some activists will attempt to defuse such claims, one said they were a powerless think tank. OK, let's test that claim. Who are their past and present members, who according to them, could only talk big and do nothing? Unlike the others, the Club of Rome believe so deeply in their agenda they do not keep secrets, as they want people to follow them. They are no different to the others in views and plans, just in their openness. Mikhail Gorbachev, Vaclav Havel, Pierre Trudeau, even if you just take their names as major international figures you can work out the less familiar names have the links to power directly regardless of their own statuses Club of Rome It is all on their own site but not with the longer list of names or analysis.

Finally, anyone still lagging behind, should listen to Mike Hulme, one of the top ten climate scientists working with the UN. He admitted to lying in a Guardian interview, and even had the barefaced cheek to justify it with a scientific (like astrology is scientific) theory, 'Post-Normal Science'. Created by professional liars (as they promote lying to fulfil ends, much like Goebbels and Bernays), Funtowicz and Ravetz, he clearly stated how it works as:

" Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence."

To analyse it based on the words rather than any implied intentions, to whittle it down he said "We need things to change, and are bound to lie to make it happen". That of course is not science, but fraud, so he has admitted, as a top climatologist, both he and his entire consensus is fraudulent. How else can you interpret it?

Original list of quotes with sources 

Wednesday, 18 March 2015

Proof our governments are crooks

Now had I told people in the evening news that carbon trading had been created by a gas company to cripple the opposition and then stride in and replace the banned coal with gas you'd say I was quoting a poor B movie.

If I went on to say it was then created by a company guilty of the greatest and longest standing organised fraud in the 20th century, collecting millions over many years with no suspicion until a small accounting glitch was traced to a slush fund of stolen money you'd say either I was blowing smoke or if you can't trust those who created a system you can't trust the entire system it's working in.

Enron created carbon trading and credits to create false profits initially to fool the shareholders for a couple of years to hide a massive black hole in their accounts. The future energy profits they included in their accounts attracted so much new investment even when trading recovered a couple of years later then they found the fake side had drawn in so much money it became their primary trade. No one questioned it, as the new money flowing each year guaranteed enough to pay investors a good rate while the directors removed the rest. There was no product, and carbon trading was carried out to penalise the opposition to pave the way for a gas takeover, which also happened gradually to this day.

In the end though they were found out, and while the court sent them all down for running a huge organised scam, the scam was sold to Al Gore and Bill Clinton before they were caught, who then took it on as the law and spread the system across half the world, even though it was proven in a criminal court to be fraudulent.

If the person you have always bought from at a discount turned out to be selling stolen goods, would you still trust them and buy the same things from a new seller when he had been sent to jail, or not touch anything to do with them again? If your investment company you had half a million invested in was caught running a Ponzi scheme but had not lost it yet, would you leave your money in it or take the lot out immediately? I presume every single person would avoid every scheme proved fraudulent, so why do most people support this one as it's actually been created by a bunch of crooks at the highest level and labelled fraud by America's criminal courts? Doesn't that mean you are supporting a fraudulent system and everyone involved in it today must also be criminals as the system is now legal but still 100% dishonest as it was deemed to be obtaining financial benefits by deception, and running both a version of a pyramid and Ponzi scheme. It is proven in law yet it goes on and at least half the people here want more of it.

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

Stop press, climate scientists believed to be fraudulent!

We regularly (daily) get accusations of the relatively few scientists who disagree with the official view that they have been paid off by the Koch brothers/big oil. Whether or not this is the case it accepts scientists can and maybe are being bribed to produce specific results.

This is very good. It is the first step. Once they accept scientists can and almost certainly are being bribed and do not follow the data but twist it to suit an agenda we can get going. If you then their connected claim 97% of the scientists agree with the official view, most if not all get their money from governments, pressure groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, and of course big oil (BP, Shell, Rockefeller, Soros etc, all major investors in both fossil fuel, and renewables, as there are now very few actual oil companies as they deliver energy by any profitable means).
Now we've accepted the principle scientists can be paid off (their claim re Willie Soon, Don Easterbrook, Richard Lindzen etc, all top level professors), is it possible to believe only those against the grain are the crooks, or it could be absolutely any of them?

We often fail to see the obvious even when it is regularly laid out in front of you, and it even took me this long to see this totally direct assumption that qualified scientists can be fraudulent by those on the believing side as well, something the others have said since the start, mainly as plenty of them have simply admitted it (whether directly or in hacked emails), something they on the other hand, have always denied assiduously. Except, they haven't. They simply said 'It's only the ones we disagree with who must be paid off, ours are perfect, look, even 97% of them agree'. But what they unanimously have no said, something they always have claimed but never said, is 'All scientists except rare rogue individuals, are above bribery and corruption'. No, they have simply said all scientists who disagree with them (3% or closer to 50% if you look into it more deeply) are corrupt, but ours of course are perfect. This can only be an illusion (just like the 97%, which is entirely fraudulent as based on about 79/4000 respondents to a single general question who fully agreed and were specifically qualified) as if scientists are corruptible, using deduction, any scientist can be. Not mine, yours or the rogue who is only their own man. There is no other possible formula. Those shouting the loudest that highly qualified climate scientists are fraudulent are the very people who claim they are perfect, above all other professions proven to contain organised fraud- medicine (lysenkoism, eugenics), banking (Libor, Forex and gold price manipulation), the top police (Hillsborough), and science itself (heliocentrism, stomach ulcers, continental drift), although in science in continental drift the problem was in fact not fraud, but mass incompetence, as the consensus of scientists at the time (well over 99%) believe the continents were fixed in place, until, as often happens, one person working alone demonstrated all the others, the overwhelming consensus in fact, all equally or even more highly qualified and specialised, were totally wrong. As with the cause of stomach ulcers, a simple bacteria.

But we have crossed the line into a resolution. Climate scientists are accepted by everyone on both side as being potentially fraudulent. Disagreeing on their identity simply requires the normal evidential process, with confessions, however gained (as we are not in a courtroom), being the highest level besides provenly altered data. Hiding the decline, and Michael Mann's tree ring saga, where he left out every single tree ring except the one which created the hockey stick slope, were two such perfectly crafted examples. The 4-5 wavy lines showing temperature vastly increasing in the late 20th century all snaked across the screen except the yellow one, which stopped about 1960, and turned out that was the one which didn't in fact rise, so was simply cut off before it fell, contradicting the others and creating doubt and uncertainty, and hid the decline.

Deciding which ones are crooks is going to be a whole lot easier than proving the believers accept they can be. That is a done job.

Wednesday, 4 June 2014

The greater the reward the higher the chances of fraud

It's nice to have the chance to write about law again after so many years away as a teacher. Having studied some criminology the motivation and history of dishonest people has never changed from day one. Basically you have three levels of individual. The leader, the one who is a psychopath and has no morals whatsoever, the follower, the one who either is pressurised into joining in from the combination of threats and rewards, or simply works to hide the fraud without benefitting directly, and the clean one who refuses to get involved and is often sacked or implicated as a whistleblower.

Having done a short survey of scientific and related fraud cases, the formula there is no different. The bell shaped curve of most people who wouldn't do it but a few at the end who always do, with more who will given the conditions, and it applies exactly the same to science as every other field. Why not? Scientists don't have an integrity field not present in all other areas, like everyone else they are human first and scientists second. The same spread of good and bad people and equal susceptibility to outside pressures. And in science with fierce competition for publication and ultimately maybe even a Nobel Prize the stakes become incredibly high.

So as a result we have a recent 21st century record of mainly internally administered discipline, but at the far end at least one court case as the system decided the fraud was too serious to overlook. I won't make this into a database of related cases as there's no shortage of those already, but a way to analyse and present the formula involved of scientific fraud, especially the major issue that nearly every guilty example was indeed peer reviewed. This is because peer review assumes honesty so was never designed for it. Therefore more garbage gets through and the general public simply assume it's genuine as they don't know how the system works, and takes a sharp eyed witness to call them for something not feeling right. I'll add some links at the end to see the details. But the main formula here is the greater the reward the greater the chance of fraud. Cut to America and the EU. They have spent billions of government (our) money on one thing in the last decade, climate research. That is where the big bucks are, and traditionally scientists have studied very hard, worked even harder, and like performers only the top few have done really well. The rest make a good living, but nothing like law or accountancy. They are partly teachers and partly researchers, and if not employed by the private sector have their salaries limited by public funds, which represent the great majority employed in universities.

Competing for grants means each project is funded, but the expenses and exact fate of the amount is barely followed, the money is for the research and expected to be used for it. If they produce the results then no one goes back and asks how many hotel rooms were paid for, it is assumed the money was spent on the research and whatever else was required to do so. This means roughly if they produce the results in the reasonable time, no one will check the hours they actually spent and whether £500 went on computer time, test tubes or a week's holiday. You get the drift. But the really big rewards are from fame, with the associated speaking fees and media appearances, like footballers. Get a major paper used by the government and you're a scientific celebrity. Some can charge many thousands for a single lecture and enhance their salary ten times or more from being the person who wrote that paper. The rarity with which they actually catch them out for faking either some or in some cases the entire material means the risks involved are almost zero. Which takes us nicely in a circle to the rule, the greater the reward the likelier the fraud.

Then imagine the protection required to maintain the golden goose laying its eggs. Climategate exposed the backroom mechanisms in both calling some experts in private on their cheating, which is obvious to their real peers who know exactly what they're doing and how they do it, and far worse the vast efforts they made to hide it when they did pick it up. Looking back on the famous frauds like Enron and Bernie Madoff which took years to discover, totally by chance after passing various investigations officially, it shows even though sharp eyes can spot the signs instantly the system itself takes years to decide to investigate the rare times it does (normally they are part of the fraud so the great majority go unchallenged), but with criminal prosecutions for Libor fixing, gold price fixing and doctoring police evidence at the very top in Hillsborough looking very far away, despite the confessions already being made and civil penalties collected in some cases, shows how unlikely anyone involved will ever be dealt with. Knowing this those with the will to do so realise they are almost certainly fireproof, and if ever challenged can usually get those same peers (like Lord Oxburgh who headed the Climategate investigation, who was part of the same community he was investigating) to get the result they want. With Libor, claims the banks only did it as they were ordered to makes perfect sense in two ways, firstly how can banks cheat the figures every single day for years without the slightest reaction, and secondly and more importantly, if any case went to trial then the perpetrators who gave the orders would be revealed, and the government would end up prosecuting its own civil servants at the very top. Imagine the effect on the voters. Even if the ministers themselves could protect themselves from direct implication the confidence would go down the toilet and people would rightly assume it wasn't just this lot but probably all of them.

It really doesn't take much to draw your own conclusions from here. The links below show the examples, the mechanisms involved, and the total absence of any scrutiny from peer review.

First US case of criminal science fraud

"My interest is in correcting the science and bringing this academic cheating to light," he said, "and maybe sending a message saying, 'You're being watched, and you shouldn't do it.'"

The case is: U.S. ex rel. Jones v. Brigham and Women's Hospital, et al, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No: 10-2301

You can't get grants easily without cheating

Returning to my target of climatologists having the currently greatest temptations and largest protection system on the planet, here is the only parliament in the world prepared to question the IPCC and its entire system directly, albeit only the opposition in the form of the US Republican party, the only serious group on the planet not part of this dominant mindset.

US IPCC committee findings

 “Well, the IPCC does not perform science itself and doesn’t monitor the climate, but only reviews carefully selected scientific literature.”

Now what this is basically saying is the IPCC is the highest level of peer review, meaning it does not question the veracity of its studies (otherwise how would Greenpeace articles written to scare people to stop using fossil fuel, or fabricated figures about melting Himalayan glaciers which had never actually be measured pass the test?) but treats it all pretty much the same and with a built in agenda appears to either get a vast majority of similar material presented, or in the case of Richard Tol who actually wanted his own genuine findings to be used, reject them when they do not agree. So any claims of consensus or homogeneity are merely the effect of self selection and if the figures don't fit the first time do what the accountants are trained to do in the first year (I was there so I know), take the same figures and use them to present a profit or a loss depending if it's for the shareholders or the taxman. And as climatology isn't as tightly regulated as accounting then you needn't hold the figures over till the following year as you have to present them eventually, you can keep them under the carpet indefinitely. Warming they say is bad for the planet but bloody good for the career, so it has to be maintained, even when it isn't happening and not happening so much they can't even adjust it away. If global warming was as real as they claim, then if the temperature started falling they'd all be dancing in the streets, not claiming it must be hiding somewhere else. And as the majority of them claim it's in the deep ocean where it's impossible to physically measure but they still insist that's where it nearly all must be, we're back to the Himalayan glacier situation again, except in this case it's probably never going to be possible to measure the true figures. That wouldn't happen in a genuine area.

Sunday, 20 April 2014

Which world temperature would you like sir?

We've already looked at the increasingly audacious adjustments added to the original data to make any temperature graph into a hockey stick, but now we have three competing temperatures altogether.

If you look at the one most people know here

There's also one with the peak a few years later, and both compete on equal terms, apparently depending on what the user wants to show, although clearly both can't be right.

Now we have an entirely new one which takes the same sources and shows a totally different result.

Clearly only one can be right, even if you then factor in anomalies or not (they make no difference), which layer of air measure or the surface (very little difference) or ground v satellite (negligible). And some are clever enough to combine some to avoid such glitches, but these three (which was only two until now) are now competing for primacy, even though it proves either they cannot measure temperature adequately, or far worse are deliberately altering the graphs as most people wouldn't know. That is a crime.

Wednesday, 22 January 2014

Economic fraud

Tying up earlier threads, here are as many examples as I can think of of governments making policies not for you and me, the majority, but minority vested interests, and if anyone else benefits it's only a coincidence as a passing benefit.

Low interest rates: Who gets to borrow at 0.5%, only banks, so by following qui bono, who benefits, this is solely to keep banks afloat and borrow for almost nothing and pay back almost nothing on their currently huge debts. The government also pay base rate so that goes for them as well. Around 70% of the people are net savers (including all pensioners as that is behind their pension rate as well) so that formula speaks for itself, we suffer for the benefit of banks.

Managed inflation: Believe them or not, inflation is a bad thing, always was and always will be. Like a fever our body needs to be a certain optimum temperature, as does the economy. Inflation is a fever, and who benefits from an economic fever? Borrowers, as the amount they borrowed is worth less. But look to the post above and you will see they are a minority, so by setting a target of 2% or any other positive rate of inflation the government deliberately want to skim 2% off the wealth of all its citizens who are not engaged in the sort of shady business which requires false growth through inflation to help it along.

Fake growth: Yes, Britain is growing again, but only because they include fake figures in it, ie inflation, borrowing and government spending. Yes, people will look taller in a photo if they stand on a box, but whether or not you can see it in the photo itself it is not really making them taller. Only increased capital, ie manufacturing, added value and infrastructure can grow an economy in reality, everything else is froth and the very fact they blatantly include it while all economists know the difference is to con the public to believe they are doing a good job and will vote for them again.

Immigration: Who benefits from immigration besides the immigrants, if economic (who most currently are) it means their country is in a dire state so who wouldn't work in a successful country especially when they can't even find work in their own? So the country spends hundreds of years building itself up since the industrial revolution, and then unlike most other developed countries opens its doors to nearly everyone and shows no sign or wish to reduce the number. Then besides the false accusations of racism (as many who oppose immigration are from all races besides white British) they pretend we need the workers and activity. But despite more pensioners living longer, most immigrants are not short term visitors but settle here and most remain for life. And what happens then, they get old as well so simply shift the present issue to the future when we'll have even more pensioners. But most immigrants from poor countries also vote Labour, so Labour opened the doors, and councils all get tax per head, so pack tighter and tighter densities 'as if they were getting the money themselves'. I say this but the fact so many do it implies there must be a very good reason for doing so, you can work out conclusions for yourself.

Of course there are only so many jobs vacant at any point in time, so if 250,000 new people arrive each year or so and the vacancies remain the same the result is obvious. But as currently they can get benefits if they can't find a job (which they generally won't much back home) why should they worry either way? But overall nothing besides the old policy from the 80s and before, which is still operated in many other countries today, of selective immigration up to an annual limit the country can cope with (you can't build new hospitals and schools to keep up otherwise etc) plus genuine refugees, will keep the economy from distortion from unpredictable and erratic workforces, and downward trend on wages due to increased supply of workers, especially unskilled who always make up the majority. Not to mention the local tension created of pockets of transposed towns and villages from elsewhere who often stick together and won't even learn English in many cases. But economically alone immigration should be selective and calculated not virtually at will. It is nowhere near as simple as the other issues here as it is a physical rather than economic issue directly, but with some very clear economic results, none of which are beneficial in total unless managed very specifically.

High house prices: Of course I have mentioned this as the flagship symptom of a growing decline to third world status. Unless you own more properties than the ones you live in you suffer from rising house prices, as Britain has gone from around the average house costing 3X average income to 10X. If you can't afford to buy a house then what else is worth having instead? Only property dealers profit, of course including banks, church authorities, property companies and investment companies, plus the new trick of foreign money launderers buying houses in London as no questions are asked and they get around 10% interest a year profit on average which forces the rest up accordingly. Everyone else sees their fixed income getting less and less as a result, and is the highest (but unrecorded) cause of inflation there is.

Taxing essentials: Direct taxation on fuel and energy, which in Britain is some of the highest in the world, means as everyone needs to be the same temperature (ask a doctor) they can't choose to turn the heating down, and as they all need the same minimum calorie intake the same goes for cutting down on food. Tax those and the poor then have less left over for everything else as we all need to eat and keep warm. So governments who tax fuel and energy when otherwise they would be affordable may as well be picking off a percentage of old and poor people by decree to die each year whether they do it directly or indirectly, as the results are known to kill thousands a year unnecessarily, as without the tax petrol at the very least would cost a fraction as much, and also free up billions back to the economy as transport costs would no longer be passed on to retailers as well as the direct costs to all users, public and private.

High income tax: This is a crime. Not by law as theft is legal when carried out officially, however hard someone has worked to rise a head and shoulders above their peers, their money represents longer at college, longer at work or more risks, or a combination of all three, assuming they acquired it legally which is another issue entirely. The incredibly simple and tested law of diminishing returns demonstrates after 50% then the total take reduces accordingly, so when Britain charged 98% in the 70s, and France just started with 75% for the top bracket, they already know the take will reduce for that band, and it is only a jealous and evil natured punishment, and discouragement to remain in the country. The combination of leaving, working less and hiding the money guarantees the state get less the more they tax above 50%, meaning they know they actually collect less and everyone else must pay even more, so why do it?

Carbon credits: This latest trick in the diverse portfolio of theft by stealth is the one example which is a proven crime, as they were created by Enron, used for a few years, and tried as a major fraud against the investors who actually believed buying future profits for energy sales and use could be predicted a year or more in advance, and used to present a healthy picture of profit to invest in a winning company. Except they were created to hide a massive hole in finances, and by the time the hole was filled and profits returned from legitimate trading, the interest generated by nothing, ie their alternative investment option of false assets attracted so much new money that became their main source of income until someone spotted it and it finally came to an end. Not content with creating such a repugnant illusion, before they were eventually busted the CEO Ken Lay met Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and they adopted it as the major weapon to gain even more money in the same way, in the guise of saving global warming, which has now made Al Gore a billionaire by paying his own company credits, proving my point. Meanwhile a decade or more after these taxes have been in place the CO2 they were claimed to reduce has continued rising at the same rate it has since they found it was, but the failure of the actual aim of the tax has never deterred a single country from continuing and increasing it, telling the people it was clearly too low so didn't work. And if people believe it it will continue rising forever while CO2 follows.

Wednesday, 25 December 2013

Gordon Brown is the enemy

After years of criticism Gordon Brown, the economist, sold Britain's gold at the lowest price, now we discover why.

The banks had short sold gold, expecting the price to fall. It hadn't and they were set to lose billions when the day of reckoning came. Gordon Brown, being what is technically described as a corporate fascist (one guided not by the interests of the people who elected him, but the corporations who paid him), did not want this to happen, so announced he was going to sell the gold (insider trading) to get the price down (market manipulation) and then sold it so low it flooded the market and got the price down so far the banks could now honour their deals and not go broke. It was our money and we have been paying for it ever since.

And this was the traditional wing of the Labour Party. Who else could you trust?

The source