Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
On St.Patrick’s day, I thought I would find any twitter posters who might be interested to know that the evidence shows St.Patrick was born in Glasgow (and to know the people claiming otherwise are just ignoring the overwhelming evidence).
After a while I began wondering why no one was responding. Eventually I checked through another twitter account, only to find that I had been what is called “Shadow banned”. Apparently this happens to a lot of bloggers who put in URLs.
Well, for very good reason I was livid. I wouldn’t have minded if twitter had sent me a polite notice about posting URLs, but to let me think I was posting messages was not acceptable.
So, I finally decided to go online with gab.com
not least because I’ve seen an increasing number of people being “deplatformed” from facebook (I’ve deleted my account) and twitter – and I like to know what people are thinking – but clearly isn’t possible when extremist left wingers in twitter are decided who I can read.
So I’m now fairly regularly on gab. My handle is @haseler and the URL is: https://gab.com/haseler. The only draw back on gab is that you’ll find you want to mute a few people – but unlike twitter, at least you know who you’ve muted and unlike twitter who are deplatforming almost anyone these days, you’ll know its for good reason.
I did an interesting search today comparing public searches for “Global warming” with that of “Mars”. There is a strange co-incidence of changes that occur in 2009 (the year of Climategate).
It seems that the year Global Warming (blue) died as a major interest by the public, was the year Mars (Red) took off. Venus provides a control by showing no real trend at all during this period. It therefore seems likely that whilst interest in Venus is not related to Global warming, that interest in Mars is – and that the increased interest in Mars had a related cause to the sharp decline in interest in “Global Warming”.
Let me show you a blow up of metrics for Mars, Venus, Global warming around Climategate:
Climategate occurs at the end of 2009 and it results in a relatively small peak in interest in global warming. A few months later (late June 2010) interest in global warming drops and it never recovers.
That same month we start seeing headlines like: “Record 520-Day Mock Mars Mission Begins in Russia“. Then late June 2010, we see a dramatic and sustained increase in the interest in Mars.
Of course, the US Democrats will now believe that Global Warming died due to Russian interference (so they also promoted interest in Mars? What to send the US economy of a long and pointless wild goose chase?)
However, if you want real conspiracies:
Students Discover Cave on Mars
Realistically, I think that what this shows is that after Climategate, those that were pushing global warming decided to swap to pushing Mars. The obvious candidates with an interest in both fields are:
- NASA – who perhaps thought Climategate had killed environ-mentalism as a long term source of funding NASA and so sought other “reasons” for the US public to pay
- US government – see Mars as a way to get the public off the stupid Global Warming alarmism cult
- The Russians (or Chinese) realising that the US is not going to commit economic suicide after Climategate – decide to encourage it to commit economic suicide by attempting to go to Mars.
- News corp “science” reports got fed up of “Global Boring” and so starting covering Space instead.
- There really was a cave on Mars filled by aliens and that in order to save humanity some film star has to spend most of the US’s economic output to go and talk to them (why does no one ever phones aliens?)
For years, the only evidence of “global warming” except bogus faked NASA temperatures was an apparent melting of glaciers. I say “apparent”, because once people like NASA have been caught fiddling one lot of figures on global temperature, there’s no knowing what else they will fiddle.
NASA of cause asserted that it was beyond doubt that glaciers were melting because of their “warming” of the global temperature. However, sceptics like me thought it very possible that from 2000-2020 we are experiencing the warmest phase of the North Atlantic oscillation. This oscillation is due to changes in ocean currents.
The one thing that started to put me off this idea was that we couldn’t see any signs of the recooling. Ironically, who should give us the first evidence of the necessary changes that lead to cooling temperatures? Nasa!
In my last post A Unified Theory of Recent Political Strife I outlined how the rise of the internet empowered new groups and had a similar effect to the rise of printing that both led to witch trials as well as political, religious and scientific progress.
In this article I want to explore the mechanisms by which this works. The basic theory is that by giving a group a “voice” to express their views and to hear others – whether a printed books, or an internet blog, you empower this group. There is obviously a big assumption here – that a voice gives power – which I’m not entirely confident is easily argued. Indeed, the inference is the other way around. Certain groups were empowered – whether it was those obsessed with witches in the past, or e.g. those obsessed with climate today – and it seems that the change in information technology was what gave them the power.
It seems that people with a voice and a means to communicate have power merely through that communication. Which in terms appears to me to mean that “society” cannot help but listen and treat their opinions seriously – even if there is no compulsion to do so. For I cannot see any other way that the simple act of giving people a voice ends up in power. How else do we explain how the disenfranchised men and women got the vote? Why would those with power give it away – unless some human nature forced them to give it away to those without power, but with the means to have their views heard?
The next assumption, is that those who previously did not have a voice, may gain power to do things which can both be “good” and also “evil”.
The next assumption – given that the problems of the printing revolution did eventually sort themselves out with an end to witch trials and a new structure for the Christian church, that in some ways society must adapt in order to tackle the “evil” that comes with these changes. One way this may happen, is simply improving education. So, the very books that encourage witch trials, may eventually be the means by which the population are educated that witch trials are bogus. Likewise, the very internet that created the global warming scare, is now the means by which the scare is being exposed for the scam it is.
Perhaps a model for this kind of process is as follows: that prior to the information revolution, destructive ideas such as the idea that Witches exist and can harm people do exist, but they exist within groups who have no power to do anything. So, these ideas are effectively harmless. Similarly, there have always been anti-capitalists, anti-fossil-fuel idiots, but in the pas they had no power to influence public policy.
Then along comes the information revolution, these enable ideas to cob communicated, to have bells and whistles added and the means to communicate them gives those who formerly had not power, power. The result is that crazy ideas burst out of the insane box and for a while wreck havoc. But it also appears that eventually society adapts. Perhaps in the case of Climate, that will be a new social norm where sceptics have power – or perhaps there will be a push back against the politicisation of schools and universities which have been so much involved with the climate craziness. So, a change in information technology, could have fairly dramatic changes in society. Those already in power, may be compelled to bring into government groups who formerly were ignored in order to restabilise society. Or as happened in England – society may take the change into its own hands and literally chop off the king’s head. Continue reading “A Unified Theory of Recent Political Strife II”
Today is St.Patrick’s day. Whilst Patrick is well known as the patron Saint of Ireland, his birthplace in Scotland is less well known and this is not helped by several variants of fake history that have grown up suggesting other locations.
Patrick was a descendent of a Roman citizen, so presumably at one time his ancestors came from Rome or another location in the Roman empire, but his grandfather was a Roman citizen & a priest with property which many think must have been in Roman Britain. But the early lives of the Saint tell us he was born in Nemthur near Alt Cluid (Dumbarton Rock), so, at some point his family moved to Strathclyde, possibly as a result of one of the persecutions of Christians. Unfortunately we are not told whether his Grandfather inherited the estate after he moved to Strathclyde, or perhaps never moved, or indeed his grandfather’s estate may have been outside the empire.
But why did they move to Strathclyde? To understand this we must go back several hundred years before Patrick was born a Roman named Antonine decided to build a wall across Scotland from the Forth to Clyde in 142AD. This finished at the ford across the Clyde at the fort of Old Kilpatrick. We know that these forts would have had civilian “vicus” attached to them so undoubtedly there was also a large civilian settlement attached to the fort. And being on the Clyde near an important iron-age fort at Dumbarton, there is no doubt that this settlement would have seen a lot of trading ships coming up and down the west coast between Scotland and the Roman empire.
The Roman occupation of Scotland was not long lived as the wall was abandoned about 162AD. But clearly Strathclyde did not end it links with the Roman empire. The evidence for this comes from the numerous Roman coins found through the area of Strathclyde which continues and even increases toward the end of the Roman occupation of Britain. It seems Strathclyde continued to have close connections with Rome long after they formally left. Indeed, this was a typical pattern for the Romans that used to maintain pro-Roman “client kingdoms” on their borders. These were Kingdoms that the Romans kept sweet by limited train and even bribes, which acted as a “buffer” to more hostile states. If these client Kingdoms were attacked, Rome may offer support t them, but it often demanded that they in return furnish them with soldiers. This was likely the relationship between Rome and the Kingdom of Strathclyde or Alt Clud.
So, why would a Roman like Patrick’s family come to Strathclyde? The answer appears to be that there was a “little Rome” in Strathclyde very much like we might get “little China” – an area where immigrants tend to come because there are already immigrants. This may have started with the wall, but it kept going because of a regular influx of news immigrants in the form of runaway slaves. They could have come from anywhere in and around the Roman empire, so far from the idea that people have had of a barbaric mono-cultural Scotland Strathclyde was probably a very multi-cultural place!
But why did it become a Christian centre? We know that Christianity was particularly strong amongst the slaves of Rome, it is likely that increasingly amongst the runaway slaves would be Christians. This gives us a reason why Patrick’s grandfather priest may have come to Strathclyde. The slaves may have been Christians – the congregation of Christians were there, but they may have lacked priests and Patrick’s Grandfather may have moved simply to fulfil this role.
However, a less benign cause was the numerous persecutions of Christians. We know that St.Albans was beheaded in the late 3rd century for sheltering a priest. We are not told what happened to the priest – but it’s a fair bet they got out the Roman empire ASAP. And where would they go? Strathclyde – which was conveniently outside the empire, and because of the Roman Wall a hundred years early already had a sizeable population of Christians.
Is there any proof that Strathclyde was a Christian centre? Yes!
- First we have Patrick’s own writings telling us his grandfather was a priest and his father a deacon. So at least Old Kilpatrick had some Christians of Patrick’s own family.
- Then we have the earliest Christian graves in Scotland dating from the 5th or 6th century (the time of Patrick) just across the Clyde from Old Kilpatrick in Govan.
- Then we have the foundation of Govan by “St. Constantine” who is said to be of the Strathclyde Royal family. This shows that even royalty were Christianised, presumably at the date of the earliest Graves in Govan in the 5th and 6th century.
- Finally we are told that Gildas (the first Church historian of Britain born ~500AD) came from Strathclyde. It seems highly unlikely people in Strathclyde would be sending their sons to become monks, unless they were already Christian.
But the final clincher for me that proves beyond doubt that Patrick came from Old Kilpatrick (known as Nemthur) is that we have a record of this place in the early list of British places known as the Ravenna Cosmography. This gives us a list of places “where Britain is thinnest”, that is where the Antonine wall is located, but it doesn’t say “on the wall”, so although some were undoubtedly on the wall, not all of them were. This had long confused Roman Scholars who assumed the places were a list of forts solely on the wall. This was wrong! The clue they were not aware of was a note to Nennius which tell s that there were only 7 forts along the wall. If we look on the list we find that (assuming a small copy error combined two place names), the seventh entry for the last fort at Old Kilpatrick is Nemeton which is clearly a Romanised version of Nemthur. The previous one is Medio (Bal-mulidy) and the next is SUB-DOBIADON which is clearly Dumbarton.
The great thing about my education and experience is that from a very early stage, I could see that the climate scam would end in tears. Yes, I can see that academics in science might have believed they could change the world. Engineers in Energy, could see that they could build devices that captured win and solar. Economists might believe that you could pull an economy up by the bootlaces – so that it doesn’t consume energy. And politicians might easily be fooled that all that was needed was a modest increase in energy costs.
But having a foot in all camps – I could see that it was total delusional madness to believe that we could stop using fossil fuels without returning our society to something closer to the middle ages than the present. Individually, each group thought it could work – but none of them understood the mutual inter-reliance that was involved such that trying to reduce energy usage in one place – just increased it in another. Trying to drop energy usage overall – didn’t just involve an increase in direct energy costs, but it would lead to a vicious cycle of inflation that MASSIVELY increased economic costs to the extend of committing economic suicide.
I tried to warn people – I failed – they either couldn’t or didn’t want to understand. So, ten years on from Climategate we are now getting to the stage where they are trying to implement their delusional ideas big-time. And the tear(ga)s is starting to flow as the continued YellowVest protests (heavily suppressed by press) continue to show. BUT THAT IS JUST THE START. If they keep pushing this climate scam, it will get worse, IT WILL GET FAR FAR WORSE! Continue reading “Search for the Guilty”
Until recently my ideas of the social forces that had brought about the “climate war” (as I call it), was that the internet had enabled outsider scientists and engineers to become interested in and to comment on the subject of climate, and that the internet had also been the means of enforcing a rigid group-think in academia. These ideas I published in the book “the Academic Ape” (ostensibly an “April fool”, but in reality the core ideas were serious and the “April fool” was on anyone who thought it was just an April fool).
This theory suggested that academia was behaving like a group of apes, who having “their territory” invaded by outside “sceptics” were behaving with ape-like instinctive aggression to “repel” outsiders by basically howling and thrashing trees and generally throwing metaphorical shit at us. This seems to explain the appalling behaviour of numbskull scientifically illiterate individuals like Lewandowsky.
However, this clearly wasn’t sufficient. Because I see many similarities in other social changes that have been happening – and they can’t all be blamed on the same idiots in academia – but they all did seem to be connected to the internet:
- The Arab spring – was a series of revolutions in which the internet was instrumental.
- Brexit – where the evidence shows every single media outlet is either extremely hostile or at best neutral, and every major political party is dominated by remainers, showed that even the remainers almost monopoly of the press and political parties could not change the views of ordinary people formed larger through shared personal experience on social media.
- The election of Trump, where he was universally loathed by the press who used to dictate who got elected again showed the new power of the internet.
Thus my original theory that this was one group “invading another’s territory” didn’t explain these massive changes that we have seen in politics worldwide. Somehow the internet seemed to be key. At first I saw the internet as a triggering mechanism.But I am now more and more drawn to the idea that the internet is almost solely responsible as a controlling mechanism. This graph sums up my view very well:
For what it appears to show, is that the period of Witch trials, church revolutions and event the English civil war, were all part of a common group of phenomenon, during the phase of RAPID CHANGE due to printing. Rather than as I had thought, that printing ENABLED the revolutions & witch trials, instead, it appears to be that these are transitional phenomenon due to unresolved IMBALANCES in society caused by the change in power of various groups as printing changed society. Continue reading “A Unified Theory of Recent Political Strife”
This is a long video, but it is very well worth watching because it exposes the way academia works and the nonsense that fills academia. It isn’t on climate, but nether-the-less it exposes very much the same group think, silencing of critics and “unevidenced” rhetoric as we see in the climate. As such it shows the non-sense in climate is part of a much wider problem.
But perhaps most importantly, and optimistically, it finishes by talking about a recent change in academia. This fits in well with the idea I had of “witch trials” during the most rapid phase in the information revolution (link). Perhaps the “witch trial” period of attacks on sceptics is coming to an end and common sense is returning?
A decade ago in 2009 we got a wealth of substantial proof about how dishonest climate academics were when it came to “hiding the decline” in their “science”. But unfortunately, far from turning around the subject as it ought, 10 years later the subject is far more dishonest than I could have believed even in 2009. For back in 2009, we genuinely thought that if we highlighted the dishonesty of academics when compiling global temperature, that that would force them to mend their ways and the global temperature graph would be more believable. Today, I can honestly say that I see absolutely no point in even attempting to “correct” the current rubbish of most groups which has no credibility at all as it is just figments of their vivid imaginations. They have shown they can and do make the global temperature say whatever they want it to say.
If there is so much MORE to be done than at the time of Climategate, why then, have I largely stopped working on climate? The reason is simple: we are past the “what if” stage of the climate warming scam where it was a question of the scientific predictions. We are past the stage where a bunch of biased academics could scare the world by fraudulent predictions. We are past the stage of only having their predictions of the future, but instead it’s increasingly about tangible things that academics can’t distort: “what has it done” and “what is the cost”.
In terms of the “what has it done” … the answer is nothing and “what is the cost”, the answer is mega huge. Better still, public interest has steadily declined, leaving the politicians with an unwanted hugely costly commitment to something that has proven not to be a problem.
We are now 20% of the way from the 2001 IPPC prediction of 1.4 to 5.8C warming by 2100 and we continue to see no discernable problems of any kind. Indeed the only effects of rising CO2 have been the beneficial increase in crop yields. Something that any numpty can see was entirely predictable … but something the academics omitted to mention to the public or politicians. But worse! We are less than 20% of the way to the the massive costs – and governments are already falling as a result.
This is why the global temperature no longer matters. This is why winning the argument on the “science” doesn’t matter.
Yes they still fraudulently change the global temperature. But they have done themselves no favour by it. Because by falsely exaggerating the recent temperature to get rid of the pause, all the climate scamsters have done is to block the excuse that “the reason we aren’t see any effects is because of the pause”.
The reason I first got involved campaigning to get the science heard on climate, is because I had been in the wind business and saw the “pounds in their eyes” profiteers there, who would stop at no dirty trick to undermine wind groups (including paid saboteurs signing up to undermine them from within). Likewise I had been in the Green party – and seen them for the bunch of science and engineering numpties they are. And I had been in the British Wind Energy Association and seen how it was run by the big oil corps. And I had been in the Scottish Parliamentary Renewable Energy Group, seen the dishonesty of civil servants and the gormless politicians jumping on the bandwagon. And I had tried to get the truth about wind (jobs) heard and had seen the bias of the press.
Back around 2007, there was not a single substantial group even willing to put up a counter arguments to what is undoubtedly the world’s biggest scam. There was absolutely no balance. It was like Hitler’s Germany – you had to accept the official line or you became a non-person. And like Hitler’s Germany, there was a real risk of substantial social, political and economic harm as a result.
Today, even the president of the US is (supposedly) a sceptic and many politicians and even whole governments are increasingly and OPENLY sceptical.
In terms of stopping the rot in climate – Climategate was an appalling failure. Because far from stopping the rot, the establishment coverup in the UK merely emboldened the alarmists to take their dishonesty to the next level. However, in terms of making the public and politicians aware of this dishonesty, it was a huge success. Thus I think those of us who worked to expose climategate are largely responsible for the current change in attitudes which is rapidly moving us toward the balance – with increasingly large and politically powerful groups in opposition – that is halting this scam.