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

Sunday, 10 November 2013

Legalized fraud- structured financial instruments

Having presented how the officially fraudulent 'energy credits' used by Enron, creating non-existent future profits to attract investors, became legal as carbon trading, using the excuse most people still believe (even though it's hardly happened for years) of global warming, here's one better. Fraud actually allowed as far as I know worldwide (as these pieces of shit are traded worldwide) by allowing financial traders to sell mock auction lots, with the triple whammy of blaming the victim using due diligence, buyer beware, and official ratings. But the due diligence actually cancels out the official ratings, as like cheap beef sausages these lesser objects only need to contain about 3% meat, probably a lot less. The problem was customers were recommended these by dodgy companies before the 2007 crash, and by accepting the product without knowing this simple formula saw much of their wealth flushed down the toilet, as all the bad debts from sub prime mortgages and stratospherically leveraged companies (like 40-1 instead of the usual 3-1 debt-asset ratio).

The formula is so simple if you knew it you wouldn't touch one.

1) The contents of the package are secret, so much so many sellers did not have a clue what was in them.

2) The rating applies (the agencies know what's in them) as long as there's any AAA material in them, rather than rate according to the average risk.

3) All customers were permitted to know was the rating and very little else yet they bought in billions.

Imagine an honest broker (what are they nowadays?), I have a package for you they call AAA but technically the law (who made that?) says they are unknown and probably based on highly leveraged debt and mystery mortgages, from uncertified borrowers. Not many would have been sold then.

However, the real scandal is not that people were stupid enough (including huge companies) to fall for this utter crap even though a quick enquiry would tell you exactly what I just have, but that it is allowed by all the countries who allow trading in them. All of them as far as I know. So not just a few bent governments, like Britain (the freest market in the world according to Max Keiser, free of rules and regulations) let this garbage pass from seller to buyer, but as many as I have seen fall like cards when the defaults happened.

Here's a polite description while others prefer to tell it more how it is

"After 2001, a major, rapid transformation of financial markets occurred, as US banks and other retail institutions extended their loans to risky borrowers (subprime loans) and transferred these risks to the overall financial market using credit risk transfer instruments via securitization. CDOs of these mortgages were the most popular structured instruments for credit risk transfer. The AAA ratings that were initially attributed to many of these structures by the rating agencies were clearly erroneous, as many of these products defaulted when the underlying subprime loans started to default in 2005.
Subsequently, many of these structured products were downgraded by the rating agencies. By then, however, most of the damage had already been done.
During this period, securitization transformed low-grade assets into investment-grade assets via complex financial instruments such as asset-backed commercial papers (ABCP) and CDOs whose effective default risk was much higher than that of traditional AAA bonds. The crisis was accelerated because banks were under pressure from the financial market to increase the supply of high risk mortgages in order to generate assets with high yields in a period of low interest rates. This repackaging was very lucrative, which encouraged these CDO equity holders to issue a second generation of CDOs with lower yield, which in turn increased the demand for first-generation and mortgage-backed securities (MBSs). When the subprime loans started to default, these financial products externalized the damage to the international markets. This financial crisis has caused external damage to the real economy (unemployment) and the monetary economy (low credit conditions for consumers and business firms even if the prime rates of the Central Banks were very low). It has eroded confidence in financial institutions and rating institutions that induced consumers and investors to take large risks."
These are the official details, wise after the event. Of course, had everyone known that in 2001 onwards the financial crash would never have happened. And guess what, hardly any rules have changed, and now only large companies know to steer clear of this junk, not because it's illegal but because they've discovered what it really is. Unlike the current punters. If you want to learn more check out Max Keiser's numerous videos on the topic.

Friday, 11 October 2013

You've been had, big time!

Besides the expected sanitisation of the October 2013 UN IPCC report, removing all but the slightest traces of the 17 year ceasing of warming in the world, they did hide a single page of reduction of the majority of expected consequences of global warming which somehow the media managed to miss entirely. So while they raised the certainty of blaming you and me (yes, you) to 95% we are raising the temperature, the scope and consequences of such a raise were reduced (and in some major cases removed entirely) from the new report. I enclose the table here.

Now not the IPCC but the media chose to focus on the general rough conclusion, meaningful in no more than a political way, that now they are 95% certain man is creating warming. The details however were never entered into in any significant detail by a single report. But they are here, and I will work my way through them one by one:
Atlantic MOC collapse: I suspect they have put this in for the same effect it had on me. What the heck?
Ice sheet collapse: No
Permafrost carbon release: No (CO2 to you and me, ie no positive feedback there)
Clathrate methane release: Yes, but  very unlikely. In their own glossary, this means almost zero, so slightly above no just in case it ever did happen. This is more positive feedback much vaunted by the likes of Greenpeace out the window and from their claims (but not mine as I researched it) quite a big one.
Forest diebacks: Very unlikely
Long term droughts: Very unlikely
That's quite a lot gone now. What's not mentioned are the floods, hurricanes and tornadoes (not in this table at least) which many others prior to this report also raised figures for after President Obama claimed they had increased, but they haven't. So they probably won't either.
In conclusion:
The IPCC appear to be saying they are now almost certain man has warmed the planet, but the consequences are way below what they said in every other report, mainly  because they have had over twenty years to see what happened in the real world compared to their models.
To me, that says it all.

Wednesday, 2 October 2013

The New World Order has been revealed

 "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time
Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
forty years."

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a
world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national
auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

"Everything is in place - after 500 years - to build a true 'new world'
in the Western Hemisphere... And what happens if we don't pass NAFTA?
I truly don't think that 'criminal' would be too strong a word for
rejecting NAFTA."

David Rockefeller

He has admitted it now openly, the only fraud is the media he tamed has kept it quiet and leaves it to idiots like me to let people know and get torn apart as a result.

Monday, 12 August 2013

They are not our friends

I was told years ago the government are not our friends, and do not look after us but themselves. Anything they do in our favour is either a bribe or a coincidence. Once you have that view you start looking for examples, and every now and again in a policy or a throwaway comment they prove it, in the form sometimes of an open confession few will even notice.

1) Low interest rates. The current UK rate of 0.5% helps a third to a quarter as many people who borrow as the great majority who saves. The banks and governments however do borrow at 0.5% while others still pay a few percent to a few thousand depending on the nature and length of the loan. So in this example, there would be no logical reason for any government to hurt the large majority of society, unless it helps them instead.

2) Renewable energy. Wind turbines cost around ten times more per watt than fossil fuel, and even then by their nature can't ever produce the small amounts of power, often in short bursts (like the wind, basically) which ends up wasting half as it's produced when not needed, and staying idle the rest of the time. They need power to start them up, turn them to the wind, heat them when freezing and stop them when too windy. Then a real power station must be on permanently to back them up, again whether or not the power it uses is drawn on. They can't produce on demand so waste their energy as well while they are not being drawn on, wasting energy twice. The maintenance is vastly expensive when they go wrong and use millions of tons of concrete for the foundations. They will never be able to produce more usable power than they cost.

Solar panels only work in sunny areas during the long days, which is stating the obvious unless you've bought them already and clearly forgotten. People buy them for the guaranteed subsidies simply taken from everyone else's bills, and in the winter when they are needed the most can hardly work at all outside the tropics. So you have a system which produces a weak amount of energy (the atmosphere reduces the sunlight by 25 times) and if stored can only be released when there's enough time during the daylight to build enough up. So their production decreases directly with the amount required.

Wood chips are supposed to be a waste product of the building industry, yet besides costing three times more than fossil fuel Britain can't produce their own and import them from the US. As trees are a restricted commodity there will be a point reached where the annual requirement for wood chips can never be met worldwide as the trees can't grow fast enough to be cut down and burnt.

Biofuel clears either existing crops or rain forest, and creates monocultures of corn and palm oil which instead of being used for food (they don't grow more corn, but take a proportion of it) is burnt despite there being hundreds of year's worth of coal at the very least.

Again, the figures are absolutely known in every aspect. Everyone, even the buyers, know for example an electric car can only be fuelled at a point (even if you have to wait many hours when you reach one), but still buy the things and somehow wipe from their minds the inevitable point when they will find themselves, probably on a cold winter night when they need the heater and maybe the wipers on, and forget the usual 50 mile range is down to 30 or 40. Even if they run out a mile from home, they may be able to walk home, but how will they get the car back? Answers on a postcard please. And wait till the battery runs out, a new one costs the value of the car.

3) Unemployment. Throwaway comments can be the destruction of any criminal's career, as when you're a crook your truth is criminality. You lie to appear genuine, and your victims who believe they are your customers pay for the products of your front business, while the money is almost certain to never reach its final destination of a full return plus profits. So for example someone spends £8000 on a solar panel, despite the maths explain on the brochure you will only save £300 a year (based on subsidies and average annual output, which cannot be known in advance), meaning they can't produce a profit for well over 20 years, and how many people will still be there by then? I don't think you can take them with you, plus the wiring and inverter to convert DC to AC. But some solar power drops off after a few years, and some pack up long before the 20 years is up. Then they need cleaning every year, and guess what it costs to get a man up to wipe them clean. Whichever way you arrange the figures the only person making a profit are the sales chain. Now if someone like, say, the managing director of Siemens, said to his staff "We all know solar is a waste of money but the profits are so great we must get involved anyway". This was reported by a number of staff at a meeting when it happened, but for the economic realities of reducing subsidies and maybe customers waking up to the figures gradually then they didn't do it for very long. And the simple observation very few bankers own a credit card. Follow the insiders, they know, and if they don't buy GM food or aspartame in their drinks then neither should you.

Our great new leader, Mark Carney of the Bank of England, for the first time ever gave conditions for the rise in interest rates he wasn't planning to do. Unemployment must fall to below 7% from 7.8%, subject to various other conditions. The Daily Mail reported how investors are dreading this week's unemployment figures, as if they are too low then it could mean an earlier rise in interest rates.

These are the bankers who gain from low interest rates, like property companies gain from high property prices while the owners never can, and are both a tiny minority of society. The government and the bankers work in tandem, sharing the low interest rates and passing bonds and futures between them to enrich whoever wins the bets, while it's our money they're gambling with as they stole it from investors in deposits and pensions. So we already know the government are not looking after us with low interest rates, but the people they are looking after, the bankers, want the country to have high unemployment as they make more profits from it. You can't please all the people all the time, but surely you should look after the majority wherever possible, and never try and profit from their misfortunes. As Mark Carney has now guaranteed will happen.

It is one thing to spend years of detective work tracing money and tracking down perpetrators to spend weeks or months presenting evidence in court before possibly winning a guilty verdict, and having policies which openly admit 'We are ripping you off' in ten foot tall flashing letters. How much more evidence does anyone need, that you can not only prove our government is looking after a small group of already successful people, but probably the great majority of all its other policies are doing the same thing in less obvious ways? We can elect new people, and the rise of UKIP is proving this with their growing support ahead of the next elections, but until the majority actually discover how the current three parties (as they don't disagree on any of these policies) are all out to get us, or at least not out to help us, things can never change. Unless you want them to.