Why Trump Will Be Re-Elected.

In January of 1989 George Bush Sr became president. In April of that year the Chinese killed their own people in Tiananmen square. The United States increased jobs being outsourced there. In 1993, Bill Clinton became president. Bill signed the law that made it easier to outsource to China upon getting in office and then worked to get Nafta. Let us not forget 1996 and the Chinagate scandal. That was when China sent money to the DNC under Clinton. The Bushes and the Clintons created the Rust Belt, not Trump, not blacks, not Jews, not Muslims, not Jesuits, not gays or Neo-Nazis. The Midwest waited patiently and voted for Obama rejecting Hillary in the primaries, they knew what her husband had done. Obama promised a better future, HOPE was his slogan and they did. NOPE was his answer once he got in office and a Democratic congress. He didn't get them universal healthcare, he got them the Republican Romneycare, which they could not afford on $8 an hour and taxed them for NOT buying insurance. What did Hillary offer them in 2015? She didn't even visit Wisconsin and called them deplorables who were afraid of change. In 40 years what changes have helped them and what promises were made and not fulfilled?

What can they say now to these people? They can say they will strengthen the power of unions; but, that is meaningless when the jobs have already been outsourced. They can promise them a free college education, it means little to a 35 year old working 2 jobs just to survive. What is the Democratic platform. Trump bad, illegal immigrants without high school educations good, transgender bathrooms should be mandatory, people in the Midwest are lazy, xenophobes, homophobes, racists, anti-semites, was what they were told. The same people that destroyed the rust belt told them that manufacturing will not come back and that it's all their fault.

When the working class started the Tea Party the were told the same thing. So they elected Trump who said he would stop illegal immigration and bring back jobs. For the first time in a long time they have any improvement rather than just more downhill sliding. They are not impressed when you tell them Trump is a liar, they have been lied to by Democrats for 40 years.

The real reason that the Democratic party wants to eliminate the Electoral College is so that they don't have to listen the people whose lives they have destroyed in the Midwest and can just listen to the people who have benefitted from gutting this nation and their lives. Why didn't they vote for Jeb Bush, because the Bushes sent their kids to war and further outsourced jobs.

After the housing crash two new groups emerged, the Tea Party and the Occupy movement and both were anti-globalist and anti-establishment. The Tea Party believed the system could work to their advantage if they insisted their politicians work for them. They were allowed into the Republican party and co-opted out of existence. The Occupy movement was violently removed and splintered into groups which were directed to focus on social issues like gay marriage. I wrote about this at the time and said what would happen. I said that these people were still upset and would seek a President who would do something for them. They got President Obama and he only made things worse for them. Trump came along and said "F the establishment, we going to keep out illegals and bring back manufacturing.

If you think Trump won in a large victory, he did. One of his first actions was to try and keep out immigrants from the middle east. That is not surprising, its the people in the Midwest and south who are most likely to join the military and have fought in those countries only to return home to no jobs.

Whether you know it or not, the people who work for the establishment know it. The think tanks know it. People like me who did contingency planning know it. Trump has screwed up a timeline, a timeline that has been agreed to in private by powerful people. That is why they have called for his impeachment prior to his even getting in office. The media wants to say this is a cultural divide, it is not, it is an economic one.

After the death of the tea party and occupy, I said what would happen. I said they would elect someone on the left or right who would be more extreme, we got a Socialist and Trump. Bernie let himself be cheated and didn't complain. If he runs again he will be completely crushed for that reason. Hillary would flame out in the first couple of primaries even quicker than Sanders. I also said that if that person were kept from office or removed, people will get violent. The establishment expects it. They thought it might come sooner, they thought Hillary or Jeb would win, they openly cheated and stopped Bernie. Trump proved you could beat the establishment on the right and left. Even a Roosevelt Progressive socialist like me can see that.

Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. I wrote that in 2011.

Trump will get more votes in the Black and Hispanic communities in 2020.

Conspiracy Theories Versus Real Conspiracies

A real tragedy happened today; but, I wont get into the specifics of today. Suffice it to say that the shooter appeared to believe Jews are taking over the world. The media on the left blamed Trump, of course, and the media on the right blamed the media on the left. Neither is accurate.

I grew up in a well to do area that had many Jews. I went to school with them and played with them and worked with them on theater projects. Few of the Jews I knew were devout and many celebrated Christmas because it was a fun holiday. I didn't really know any anti-Semites, if I did, they didn't talk about it. I knew a couple of people who disliked blacks because we were one of the first schools to accept bussing from the inner city. We pretty much squashed those opinions. At that time there was the beginning of radical extremist white nationalists, primarily in the Midwest. Because my father  worked in law enforcement, I knew that most of those groups were monitored and infiltrated. Groups are easier to deal with than are lone fanatics.

As my readers know I read as much as I can on the left and the right; but, I don't really read the extremists on either side very much. Still, it is hard to avoid seeing it if you read enough. Up until I was 13, I was raised as a good Irish Catholic; but, I became an agnostic and remained so for another 12 years or so and then became a Protestant, no denomination. When I became a Protestant I found many Christians who believed the Catholics had all sorts of crazy beliefs, beliefs that were never taught in the Catholic churches that I attended.

When the internet came out the fringe could be seen. I found that there are people who believe the Jesuits rule the world in secret or that the Jews rule the world in secret. On the left I discovered many who believe that Israel should be abolished and many on the right who believe the same. For my part, I have always defended Israel's right to exist. I have never understood why people like to blame the Jews for everything other than the fact that they probably don't know many Jews. The fact is no religion rules the world and the vast majority of people who identify as Muslim, Jew or Christian are so in name and tradition only. Most people just want to have a decent job, come home to their family and relax.

There are real conspiracies. The rigging of markets such as LIBOR was real and it was done by the banks, not by Jews; but, by banks. The rigging of the elections is done by the wealthy, not by Jews, by the establishment. As I have said before, it wasn't the Muslims, illegal aliens, Jews, Jesuits, gays, blacks, racists, Communists, the homeless that caused the housing crisis or the market crashes, they were caused by the "establishment". The simple fact is that the people who own the world and have power want to consolidate power and not be subject to democratic control or the will of the majority. The reason banks rig markets is simple, it is for power and money. Greedy and selfish people gravitate to where the money is, what a shock. Pedophiles try to get jobs working with kids. Same logic.

I am anti-globalism for good reasons. Globalism means that companies are not tied to any one country and as a consequence they are allowed to avoid taxes to nations and avoid environmental and other laws. I am for controlled borders because open borders drive down wages for the working and middle class. While many seek to focus on Hispanic illegal immigration, if you follow the news you will find that the big tech firms are more focused on taking the best in tech from other countries and driving down the cost of programmers and others. There are real conspiracies and those are ignored while random extremists are used to prop up the narrative that distrust of globalism is racist or xenophobic. I should point out that it was young people on the left who protested globalism in Seattle that I first noticed raising these issues.

After my divorce, the first woman I dated was a Ukrainian Jew, she was a professional, very pretty and very intelligent. One day after a date she asked me if I believed America had a free market economy. I laughed and told her that I could not comprehend how the biggest economy in the world would not have the wealthy trying to control it. If you had a few billion dollars, wouldn't you try and influence the laws? Have people forgotten why the original Progressive movement was created? In the late 1800s the industrial revolution brought amazing wealth to a few and left workers living in ghettos while working at the factories for pennies. Sort of sounds like China and India today.

Today we are told that the biggest threat to humans is "climate change". In fact, the latest United Nations report says if we don't begin reducing CO2 emissions in the west by 2020, we will be guaranteed to begin dying off by 2030. That sounds pretty serious. Each year a group known as Bilderberg meets in one of the western countries where they say, "The meeting is a forum for informal discussions about megatrends and major issues facing the world". The attendees are from business, academia, the media and politicians. The meetings are held in private and attendees are not allowed to discuss what was said. This year the agenda was:

Populism in Europe
The Inequality Challenge
The future of work
Artificial Intelligence
The US before midterms
Free trade
US world leadership
Russia
Quantum computing
Saudi Arabia and Iran
The "post truth" world
Current events.

Not one mention of climate change. In fact, they haven't had climate change on their agenda in over a decade and then it was the last item. If you wish you can follow the link provided and see their agendas and a list of attendees.

Another group called the Trilateral Commission has members from Europe, Asia and the United States. Their website says, "The Commission offers a global platform for open dialogue, reaching out to those with different views and engaging with decision makers from around the world with the aim of finding solutions to the great geopolitical, economic and social challenges of our time. A copy of their agenda for this year. Agenda. You know what was not on the agenda, you guessed it, climate change. In fact, they spent most of their time talking about how power and money are shifting to the east.

While many have heard about the "Bohemian Grove", it really is just a collection of the rich and powerful getting drunk and partying. Their motto is, "Weaving spiders come not hear". In other words, this is for fun not business. While their rituals may seem slightly creepy, it is not a deliberative body. It is a social bonding party for the rich and powerful.

If the greatest threat to humanity is climate change then why are our leaders in business and politics more concerned over populism? Because they are afraid of losing power. It is that simple. If they are so concerned about climate change caused by CO2 then why did the Paris Climate Accord call for the west to cap the CO2 emissions and allow China (already the biggest producer of CO2) to double the number of coal burning plants and not have any restrictions until after 2030?

Bad Science and Really Bad Solutions.

Media manipulation has risen to an all time high. Propaganda and advertising began using the science of psychiatry to manipulate the population in the 1920s as the result of theories presented by Edward Bernays. Bernays had a more famous relative, Sigmund Freud, who created psychiatry. The use of media to manipulate people increased in the 1950s as reported by Vance Packard in his book, "The Hidden Persuaders", which outlined the use of subliminal motivators. The best book on subliminal manipulation was written in 1974 by Wilson Bryan Key and is called "Subliminal Seduction". It is out of print, what a surprise. I have an original printing which I bought at the time of publishing. I spent a decade researching it which led to me studying hypnosis and mind control which led me to research MK Ultra. In fact I read much about the Church Commission that uncovered the CIA's work on mind control. You can read what the Church Committee said in their reports. To read the actual MK Ultra documents that were released by the CIA, I would direct you to The Black Vault, a website that is the leader in getting government documents using the Freedom of Information Act. I also would like to tip my hat, once again, for John Greenwald Jr, for creating the site and collecting millions of documents allowing us access to source materials.

My starting point in researching anything is that you cannot trust summaries or hearsay, that is why I always publish links to the actual documents when available and have since I began this blog. The reality is that opinions that are not backed up by source documentation or fail to follow the scientific method are almost completely useless to me. When I read the source documents I always look for bias and bullshit. In fact, if you yourself have not read the source documents you cannot hold a valid supportable opinion.

Now I am going to talk about climate science, again. Firstly, science requires experiments and testing to validate a theory, not mathematical models. Models do not prove cause and effect, experiments do and they must be reproducible. I do not believe in manmade global warming because they cannot show me the experiments and you can do anything you want with statistics. The true science deniers refuse to use the scientific method and use mathematical models that have not been proven to not have predictive power. That is a fact. Another maxim in science is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

When I cannot find proof for an assumption, I assume that I am being lied to for a reason. I presume that Hegelian dialectic, which is short for create a problem, have people demand a solution and then implement the solution you wanted in the first place. It is the essence of leading the public to do things that do not benefit them. It is how we got into the Iraq war. Tell people that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, convince people we must act immediately to protect them from the weapons and then invade the country. Afterwards, it didn't matter that no such weapons were found because that was not the real reason we went in.

We are told that the solution to global warming is to cease all man made CO2 emissions by 2050. We are supposed to achieve this by eating 90% less meat, converting to wind and solar and living on less, smaller living spaces and smaller lives. We are told to achieve these things by making international law pre-eminent over national sovereignty and extreme restrictions on all areas of your life. We are also told that we cannot ask China or India to restrict their emissions because it would be unfair until they have polluted as much as the United States and the west did since the 1940s. Huh?

Let us say that I believed that CO2 was bad and that manmade CO2 was going to kill us all by 2050, I can think of much better solutions to the problem. Firstly, stop the deforestation of the Amazon. Buy the land. Increasing forests reduces CO2 by scrubbing it and turning it into Oxygen. That would reduce CO2 and cause less problems for how people live. Secondly, convert to Hydrogen as our primary energy source. The burning of hydrogen creates Oxygen, not CO2. In fact Toyota makes a car that runs on hydrogen cell technology and power plants can be converted to it with very little changes to technology. Unlike wind and solar, hydrogen production can be increased to meet what the energy industry calls "peek demand". Sounds good right? In fact the fact that I don't believe in manmade global warming does not make me adverse to decreasing carbon emissions and converting to hydrogen power and it would cost less. An easy and relatively inexpensive solution is ignored in favor of very draconian and expensive solutions, why? It is ignored in favor of an international carbon tax.

So, what is the system of a global carbon tax? Well, every country would be allotted a specific amount of CO2 and be regulated by an international body of unelected people. It is a zero sum gain solution and those always stink for the majority. So, if there are better solutions and the science is garbage, why should I believe the people peddling imminent global catastrophe who rely on statistics rather than science? If you haven't read the source documents, why would you be patinate about global warming? The answer is simple, because you are responding to fear mongering and propaganda.

My outlook for the future is bleak. I think the alarmists will win. I have no belief that my opinion will effect the outcome and on one level, I just don't care that much. I don't think I can really break through the programming of most people and am content providing my readers with understanding. Then again, I only need to reach one person who will look up what I say, evaluate it honestly and then have the strength to intelligently act on it.

News you must know

Reuters - U.S. plans to rewrite rules that impede self-driving cars.

The Seattle Times - Uber gets political, will spend $10M pushing for "congestion pricing" tolls in Seattle, elsewhere.

AFP - German urges global minimum tax for digital giants.

Fox - I've found the Democratic candidate who can defeat Trump in 2020.

Global Economic Inequality and Climate Policy

Sometime in the 1970s there began a growing movement for global economic redistribution. These discussions were primarily held in the fields of sociology and political science. Prior to the industrial revolution there was little national economic inequality which is to say that all countries were relatively poor. The industrial revolution changed this and shifted both national wealth and wealth within western and other industrial countries. After World War II, the United States became the manufacturer of the world and the wealth of the United States outstripped that of the rest of the world.

For a more in depth discussion of the issue, I recommend you read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Global Justice. This philosophy was closely tied to the belief that wealth should be more evenly shared across the world and this means having international laws and treaties that would promote the shifting of wealth from wealthy nations to poor nations. In many ways this theory led to the philosophical belief in the importance of "Globalism".

Consider which countries have benefited the most from globalism and when it began and accelerated. After the fall of the Soviet Union manufacturing was primarily shifted from the west to China and India. What do China and India have in common, they had the highest populations in the world. What they also had in common was high poverty. By sending manufacturing to these counties, we effectively were involved in global economic redistribution. This shift had an economic advantage for the wealthy within the west which was that they were able to reduce labor costs, reduce the cost of providing employees with benefits, avoiding environmental requirements, avoiding taxes and reducing the wealth and influence of the middle class in the west. The stated justification for outsourcing jobs overseas was that labor costs were cheaper and the other issues were not addressed. If our leaders said in public what they say in private, the middle class would not have accepted these changes.

As manufacturing was moved to China and India, people in the Midwest who lost their jobs began to get upset. They began fighting against outsourcing and a new explanation emerged for why people in the west had to lower their standard of living, global warming and the need for people in the west to "lower their carbon footprint". The culprit we were told was the burning of fossil fuels and the problem was claimed to be so bad that we needed international agreements to solve it. Agreements that are not voted on by the citizens of the countries that were making these wealth transfers.

The solution we are told is that all countries commit to the Paris Climate Accord. Under the accord nations set their own limits and they are not legally bound to meet retaining the right to change them. Under the agreement China will continue to expand it use of coal burning power plants until 2030, doubling the number of coal burning plants in the meantime. You might ask if CO2 is such a threat then why is China increasing it's coal burning? The answer is that China is seen as an emerging economic power and that they are entitled to "Catch up" economically. Global justice. China is currently the largest producer of CO2 in the world and is looking at doubling its emissions until 2030 while the west is expected to cut their emissions even further. What is the result, this policy basically forces the west to shift even more manufacturing to China, India and other "emerging economies".

By the way, the Nobel Prize for Economics was given to two men for tying climate change to economics. The same two are in favor of an international carbon tax, what a surprise. If you don't believe there is a connection between economic policy and climate policy, you are sadly misinformed.

If you watch the video above on Global Justice, you will discover that they see one option for global justice involves the movement of poor people into wealthy countries. Basically the unfettered migration into Europe and the fight for open borders in the United States is from globalists. 

EliteTrader - UN IPCC Official Admits "We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy."

The IPCC official is OTTMAR EDENHOFER, who was a lead author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. You can finds quotes from him at AZ Quotes. I will leave you with two of his quotes. "First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. 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."

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the worlds resources will be negotiated."

Rising Sea Levels?

Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit which is equivalent to 0 degrees Celsius (centigrade). Antarctica contains 90% of the worlds ice. Now, most of the Antarctic ice is over land rather than water and is about a mile thick. Ice that is not above land is above the saltwater ocean and can therefore be effected by water temperature. 97% of the total ice in Antarctica is above land, not the sea. In order for the land ice to be melted the temperature on the land would have to be hotter than the freezing point which it doesn't get to and hasn't in around 15 million years.

Lets talk about the Arctic now. It is made up of frozen seawater, not fresh water and therefore takes a slightly lower temperature to freeze. The thickness of the ice is about 7 or 8 feet. Many times over the past millions of years the arctic has been basically ice free, it happens in cycles. The reality is that if all the arctic ice melted it would not raise sea levels to the numbers claimed by climate change models.

Simple answer, the sea is not going to rise and wipe out the islands or coastal areas as we are being told. There have been rises in sea levels in the past; but, they occurred when we came out of ice ages and when the arctic and much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice; but, the last little ice age was (there is disagreement on exact dates) between 1600 and 1800 and happened before we began burning "fossil fuels" (I hate that term because oil does not come from extinct dinosaurs). The little ice age is generally agreed to have been a result of minimal solar spots and flaring for a 70 year period. I should point out that the minor rise in sea levels over since the mid 1800s is primarily due, not to ice melting; but, to the warming of the seas. Warm water takes up more space than cold water. The little ice age did not end because of the burning of fossil fuels, it ended BEFORE we began burning fossil fuels in any meaningful amount.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 and is part of the United Nations. It is built on the assumption of global warming and is a political body, not a scientific one. It has also proven to be frequently wrong in it's claims. This is the same group that is now claiming that we have to take drastic action starting in 2020 to avoid a catastrophe by 2030. Not surprisingly, this means by the next United States Presidential election.

Beyond all of the nonsense and lies come some real questions. Does human behavior have an effect on the environment? The answer is YES. Some of the effects are good and some are bad. One of the worst effects we have is releasing untreated contaminants into the earth and water. Does human behavior increase CO2 levels? The answer again is yes and increases in CO2 have led to increased greening of the earth. An increase in CO2 causes plants to grow more. At the same time, deforestation in the Amazon is decreasing how much CO2 adds to plant life and the creation of Oxygen. Animals take in oxygen and exhale CO2, plants convert CO2 into oxygen. Without CO2 you have no plants and without oxygen, you have no animals. Can we test the limits of these on life? Yes, we can determine that and have. We are nowhere close to those limits, not even remotely nor predictively.

I am very anti-pollution. I am also against nuclear power. I do not see any need for allowing India and China sell goods to the west if they will not enforce the same pollution laws as the west does. One quarter of the farmable land in China has been so severely polluted as to not be farmable. They are also the biggest producer of CO2 and under the Paris Climate Accord plan on doubling the number of coal fired energy plant by over 1,000. The United States is not approving any new coal fire plants and is decommissioning many. Burning coal releases different particulates (small pieces of stuff) some of these can increase acidity in the environment; but, many of the particulates can be captured and made neutral or buried without impacting the air. Think of you muffler or a cigarette filter. The point is that we can use technology to reduce the impact of burning stuff for energy by a lot; but, it costs. Europe and the United States have made those changes in technology, Asia has not and because of it will suffer, a lot. A simple solution, put a tariff on China that is equivalent to the cost of retrofitting and building power plants that use the latest technology to capture the particulates. What a concept. Second, refuse to allow goods to be sold in your country that are carried on ships that don't use the most modern and effective controls on the particulates they release. Remember 500 cargo ships create more pollution than all of the cars in the United States.

Will making the changes I am suggesting increase costs? YES. But, I can prove that it will reduce pollution and the destruction of the environment. I don't even need some bogus and rigged models to prove it, I can simply use science. The Pimpernel is a true environmentalist and has been since the 1960s. As this blog is anonymous I cannot discuss specifics without being identified. Suffice it to say that I spent 30 years working on environmental issues, primarily in the field of recycling as some of my readers know. I have advised more than one state on recycling. I have also written contract specifications that others have adopted to use recycled materials. Oddly enough, my greatest impact in the United States was probably on accounting, lol and I am not an accountant.

In science, you get what you pay for. If you are funded by a government that wants an answer, you can buy it. If you are funded by and industry that wants an answer, you can buy it. This is the reason why I have never monetized this site. You cannot buy me and everyone I worked with in business knows this.

I have not provided source documentation today. I want you to look these things up, I want you to inform yourself. There are videos I could have provided and links that would back up what I have said; but, I want you to do it. We are about to be asked to totally change life in the western world over CO2 emissions. You cannot be part of the discussion if you don't take the time to look it up for yourself. If only a few decide for us, democracy is a joke and so is freedom. Check out what I said and ask me questions, I will answer them to the best of my ability. If we are to give up our freedom to live in 250 square feet apartments and eat less meat and spend trillions to go to "sustainable energy", it deserves your investigation.

Just for fun let me add this in. Lifespans have averages and extremes. The oldest person ever that we can prove lived to be lived to 129 years. People have claimed over 130 but without any proof. The average age has fluctuated based on what is going on in the world (wars, famine, disease...); but, the limit has not changed. We are not now seeing people live to 150 or more, just not happening. The highest temperature recorded is 136 Fahrenheit though some sources say it was 134. I personally experienced 128 and it sucked. Both are based on thermometer readings over the last 120 years, not really the hottest ever because at earlier points in time the earth was burning much hotter. The heat range hasn't changed in all the time that we have used thermometer temps. We are not living longer, we just dying earlier. The average has changed, not the range, that is called variability. Never confuse the two. Averages change based on conditions and cycles, limits not so much.

Lets say that we wanted to control the temperature and lets say that we thought CO2 was a control, something we could effect to control the climate. Now lets say we knew the other variables that changed the climate. Okay, then we would want the ability to change the CO2 amount at will to keep a constant climate. We would not want CO2 emissions to just go down, we want to be able to adjust them to regulate the climate. Wouldn't we? I don't think we want another ice age, I think we would want the ability to avoid that. Up until the 1980s we feared another ice age, I remember and you can read articles about it by searching for it. Now we are told we shall enter a heat age. It is nonsense; but the bigger question is, what should the earths temperature be? Are we shooting for stasis or a range, if stasis then we must be able to adjust to get that temperature. What is the temp we are looking for and does it mean every part of the earth should be the same?

Climate "Science"?

There are 7 steps to the scientific method. You start with a question, for instance, why is the sky blue during the day. Step 2 is to investigate to do some background research. Step 3 is to construct a hypotheses. That can be any possible answer. Step 4 is Test with an experiment. Step 5 is analyzing the results of the experiment. Step 6 is making a conclusion and Step 7 is reporting your conclusion. Failure to follow that process results in junk science or more accurately, non-science and nonsense. This is also why to be considered valuable and to be peer reviewed others must be able to duplicate your test. Modeling is NOT science.

Now, the first closed system biosphere was made by the Soviet Union and I knew one of the scientists that worked on it. Biosphere 2 was done in America and was on a much larger scale. It can still be visited in Arizona. I knew someone who worked on it too but he was a builder, not a scientist. Why do I mention this? Well, the way that one would test the theory that CO2 causes climate change would be to build a biosphere and test that theory. In fact, you could test the theory using Biosphere 2. I can assure you 100% that every climate scientist is aware that they could test their theories in this manner and yet, they do not. I wonder why. If it is the greatest threat to all life on earth then one would think they would have conducted experiments that could be duplicated and tested; but, they don't. Why are we asked to believe in any "science" that doesn't follow the scientific method? I have written extensively here and on other sites about quantum physics. Why? Because I find it hilarious. I particularly enjoy the double slit experiment which proves that merely observing a thing changes how the thing acts. What I like even more is quantum entanglement. Both cannot be explained; but, both can be duplicated in the real world.

Now, as a rule when you do an experiment you need a baseline. What is the baseline for our climate? There is none, what there is, is a record of climate change and it swings. We have 800,000 years of data that we have collected from Antarctic ice core samples. The problem is, it is all from one place. We have hundreds of thousands of years of information regarding climate from tree cores from all over the earth. The problem is those only show how land temperature effected trees. Land temperature is effected by many things. In either case the data has some value. All the climate models ignore that data and rely on data collected from thermometers since around 1880. The earth is claimed to be around 7 billion years old (depends on who you ask). I should point out that the thermometers are not equally distributed around the earth. Some get their data from satellites that measure the climate in the air between the ground and up to 20,000 feet in the air.

Now we go to which data do you use in another manner. Do you generalize for the whole earth or compare by different regions? How does one select their data is the question. On any given day it will be the hottest day in the last 120 years and the coldest day in the last 120 years in some place because climate is not universal on this planet. This is one of the problems with modeling rather than testing, what data you select determines the outcome. Most people will never write a scientific paper, I have on more than one occasion. I wrote papers that were accepted by government entities and where the organizations I wrote them for received money. I am NOT a scientist, I worked with scientists and wrote the papers. I questioned the scientists and they reviewed my final reports. I have not been corrected by them; but, have only ever been given support with telling me that I have accurately explained what they have observed and tested. In one case I designed and created the computer model to determine the economic effects of the test results. Anyone who follows my blog knows that I regularly write about science AND include source documents. I am considered an expert in certain fields and have advised multiple governments including on how to scientifically test certain things. I have reviewed scientific reports and corrected the scientists in person and on occasion in public at hearings. You cannot evaluate or draw a valid opinion if you do not review the source information and the methodology.

Do human actions effect the climate? Of course they do, everything effects climate. Does CO2 effect the climate? Of course, everything does. This is why we created biospheres, to test the effect of different variables and determine the extent different things effect the environment. The question is how do different variables effect the outcome. What greenhouse gasses have increased and decreased over the last 120 years? Has methane decreased after we killed off the buffalo and other species? What variables have changed since man showed up, what variables have changed since we started burning oil? What is the baseline?

Here is what you can discover. The climate is not static and never has been. The climate is primarily impacted by distance from the sun, sunspots, planetary cooling (as the core of the planet cools since the big bang) and particulates in the air (volcanoes can change our temperature by blocking sun rays). We can model based on external effects easier than internal effects. When there are many active sunspots we can see the effect on not just earth but also on other planets temperatures.

The UN IPCC has just released a report saying that if we don't start cutting CO2 by 2020 we will all start dying after 2030. More garbage. Did you know that China plans on increasing the number of coal burning plants in their country by doubling it and they signed the Paris Climate Accord? If you believe that CO2 causes negative climate change why would you be okay with that? Why did the IPCC choose 2020? Hmm, oh yeah that is when Trump runs for his second term. Trump has been in office one year and is being blamed for global warming. Huh? Why did the Trans Pacific Partnership not include a requirement that China reduce CO2 emissions and instead prohibited other governments from restricting Chinese goods on environmental reasons? Economics drives politics and science. Wake up and do some research.

Why the rant? Frustration. I feel explaining things is sometimes pointless. Sometimes I feel as though there is too much garbage and assumptions that people accept as fact for me to get beyond without a decade of teaching. The bible says that our traditions make void the work of God. I think our programmed assumptions make void our ability to analyze reality, it is easier to believe the big lie. People want to feel comfortable with their beliefs and don't want to have to work too hard to arrive at them. People want to accept the common beliefs because it is easier. I start with the assumption that everyone is lying to me for advantage. That everyone seeks what is in their interest. My motto is generally, trust nobody and test everything. The more I am told to not question, the more I am convinced I am being lied to. In law school, we were taught that if someone says "clearly" or "obviously" we were probably being lied to.

Climate Change Source Document

There has been a lot of talk the last couple of days about a new United Nations report on "climate change". I had considered ripping the report to shreds page by page for my readers; but, don't see the point. It takes so long to get people to see just how much we are lied to and how perverted science has become by money. Whenever there is money on the table, you cannot trust anyone to do anything other than look out for their economic interests. The only way to be sure is to seek out source documents and verify claims using the scientific method and refusing to accept hearsay or second hand reports. I have consistently provided this blog wish links to source documents for that very reason.

On more than one occasion I have provided links to a document prepared in 1971 for President Nixon. The document was called "Population and the American Future". We warned that overpopulation was the real threat to our future, we were told that by the year 2000 overpopulation would be the death of us all, we were told that immigration and travel should be limited severely. In the end, they told us to expect less in the future. It was part of the great overpopulation scare of the 1970s/ The predictions proved false. Movies and media swamped us with these threats, remember "Soylent Green" or "Z.P.G." or all the other scary movies about what life would be like in 1999? They were all lies and have all been proven to be false. Oh, they dragged out the scientists and influence shapers, liars if you will. I remember.

I can sit here and point out the bullshit all day and you wont get it. Waking up from this dream takes time. I have talked for years about how self driving vehicles would be in our lifetime and have been laughed at. I have been told, "not in our lifetime" so many times. When I told mortgage brokers in 2005 that the marked would crash in in 2007, I was told I couldn't be right and I was. The world is manipulated by a small number of people for their advantage. It has always been that way. We have international monopolies, why wouldn't they try to protect their position?

I have attempted to show you what is going on and debunk the lies. I do not believe that is has been effective. Lets talk about what their proposed solutions are, the future they seek for us. Well, the owners want to have international law. They want to control us, for our benefit of course, on an international scale. They offer poor countries a better life and rich countries are scared of losing everything. Carrot and stick approach.

The TPP and the Paris Accord both attempted to overrule the Constitution. The Trans Pacific Partnership put courts of international law over the decisions of the United States. The Paris Accord did the same if ratified as a treaty. Trump refused to sign both. I do not know what Trump is but I know he has messed up the timeframe of a plan. His refusal to stand by NAFTA is negated by his acceptance of a new agreement, it is still the same three countries following the same rules. It is a new NAFTA; but, it is still NAFTA. I expect that Britain will join that trade agreement. It is possible that New Zealand and Australia will join the same agreement. Nothing I say is going to stop what is coming and I should have known that. My purpose has not been to stop what is coming, it is to get people to question what they do once it has come.

Here is the new bullshit. The United Nations has issued a new report (that disagrees with its previous reports) that claims that if we do not limit Carbon emissions by 2020, we will be forever headed down by 2030 and all will die by 2050. Laughing My Ass Off. We will go along, by 2020 or more likely 2021. Read these documents.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The love of my lifeand how we are lied to.

The picture above is of the love of my life.

Deal with it. Pimpernel is not heartless and lacking love, he is alone and misses his love. The woman in the picture above taught me that people matter and I should learn to love, I hope I did.

So, I met the woman in the picture is 6th grade. She was not allowed to date and had skipped a grade. She was half Mexican and half Irish. She became a model and actress, the picture should tell you that she also played the Cello. Stunningly beautiful, talented and brilliant. All the women I dated after divorce were the same. I have been very fortunate. What set this young woman apart was the depth of her softness, her love of others and her tenderness. I myself had little tenderness in my heart. This woman is the only person in the world who could look me in the eye and see my soul. It scared me and yet she never judged me. She told me once that she could never hate me and that was after I almost killed her best friend for threatening her (she explained he was just being a jerk and I didn't know they had slept in the same cradle). She made a better person, she led me on a journey that taught me mercy and forgiveness and empathy. Words were few; but, a look of disappointment from her crushed me. Her gentleness to me taught me a better way, it just took a bit. Because of her I became a pacifist decades later, that took a long time. LOL.

My dad taught people how to spot bogus bearer bonds. Long story. When I was 12 he taught me how to spot them. You don't teach people how to spot bogus bills, you teach them how the real deal is. You teach them how to spot the real thing and the bogus identifies itself. The lady in the picture is the real deal.

Every day we are treated to lies. We attempt to find ways to identify lies, we should instead seek ways to identify the truth. People telling the truth do not play on your emotions. People telling the truth do not fear monger, they explain. People that have true love in their hearts ask you to have the same, they don't ask you to seek revenge or pain on others. That is what this young lady taught me. She is dead by the way, she died a couple of years ago from a progressive disease. 

The thing really pissing me off about Kavanaugh

My sexual history is so pathetic to most people and perfect for me. I have been with one woman in my life and that was my wife. She cheated on me and left me for another man; but, I don't take that as permission to sleep with every women I met. I had women offer me sex many times. I did not take them up on uncommitted relationships. Not a judgement on others, my choice. The love of my life I waited years to go out with, she was a year younger and not allowed to date till she was 16, that meant 12th grade. I knew her since elementary school. I waited. In the end, she turned 16 and asked me out. Our first date ended with me telling her I was moving 3,000 miles away in two days. Not fun. I have never been inappropriate with any woman and none will claim I have been. This blog is 10 years old and I have frequently said I have never had a bad date. I am offended by the media narrative that all men are rapists. It disgusts me to the core. How dare anyone say all men are capable of rape. The love of my life knew better, she knew that I would protect her from men who might act poorly.

The love of my live was named Julia. She died a couple of years ago. I had been married and had not seen her for many years. We were each others first dates and we had waited 6 years to go on our first date because she was not allowed to date sooner. That is not quite true, she was 17 when we first dated. I didn't know when she was allowed to date because I did not know her birthday. I have never stalked a women or waited for them to be 18. Every man is not a rapist, everyman  is not a piece of garbage, every man in s not a sexual predator and it really pisses me off when they say we all are. My mom would not agree, my sister would not agree, my ex mother in law would not agree, my ex wife would not agree and my daughters would not agree. No woman that ever knew me would say I ever sexually acted inappropriately to them.

Julia let everybody know that I would hurt them if they were inappropriate to her. One person was foolish enough to threaten her, I got a bat to discuss the matter with them. Julia made it clear that she did not wish me to address the fellow, she let me know he was joking and young and stupid. Most men seek to protect women, to impress them with our stability and self control.

When Julia stopped me from beating the boy who had threatened her, I told her a story, a true story as far as I know. My grandmothers second husband beat her. His brothers did not like it, they believed men should protect women. A bunch of ginnie wops (Italians), second generation Sicily. They really hurt their brother for hurting my grandmother, they told him that men in their family do not abuse women and that if he ever beat my grandmother again they would kill him and bury him. They showed they cared about morality more than nationality or blood. They showed that they were real men and protected women. Why must I be told all men are sexual abusers? Do you honestly believe that all gay men are secretly rapists? They would have to be if all men are rapists, wouldn't they?

I am offended by being told that being a white man means I am a racist and a rapist. The women that know me would be offended by it. Should I think every woman is an adulterer because my wife was? Should others assume all men are rapists because they have been raped

When I was 16 a women who was also 16 placed herself on my lap during a show I was managing, she rubbed back nd forth until I had an orgasm. She went into the diplomatic corp. She was incredibly conservative and I am a socialist. Should I have reported her to be the first woman to cause me to orgasm while we were minors? Did you ever play doctor when you were a child? When was the first time you saw a nude boy or girl? I don't believe kids should be having sex, I do think they should learn about it, it is natural. We seem to be seeking a place where men cannot express their sexual desires. Should I not be able to tell a woman I find her attractive? Is it sexist for men to find women attractive?