Manipulation

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Manipulation

Post by MSimon »

Here is an interesting conspiracy theory site for all you conspiracy buffs:

http://burningbabylon.wordpress.com/200 ... uiet-wars/

*
Everything that is expected from an ordinary weapon is expected from a silent weapon by its creators, but only in its own manner of functioning.

It shoots situations, instead of bullets; propelled by data processing, instead of chemical reaction (explosion); originating from bits of data, instead of grains of gunpowder; from a computer, instead of a gun; operated by a computer programmer, instead of a marksman; under the orders of a banking magnate, instead of a military general.

It makes no obvious explosive noises, causes no obvious physical or mental injuries, and does not obviously interfere with anyone’s daily social life.

Yet it makes an unmistakable “noise,” causes unmistakable physical and mental damage, and unmistakably interferes with the daily social life, i.e., unmistakable to a trained observer, one who knows what to look for.

The public cannot comprehend this weapon, and therefore cannot believe that they are being attacked and subdued by a weapon.

The public might instinctively feel that something is wrong, but that is because of the technical nature of the silent weapon, they cannot express their feeling in a rational way, or handle the problem with intelligence. Therefore, they do not know how to cry for help, and do not know how to associate with others to defend themselves against it.

When a silent weapon is applied gradually, the public adjusts/adapts to its presence and learns to tolerate its encroachment on their lives until the pressure (psychological via economic) becomes too great and they crack up.

Therefore, the silent weapon is a type of biological warfare. It attacks the vitality, options, and mobility of the individuals of a society by knowing, understanding, manipulating, and attacking their sources of natural and social energy, and their physical, mental, and emotional strengths and weaknesses.
And IMO the Global Warming Scam is just such a weapon.

A lot of people (probably enough) think that handing control of energy supples over to some authority is a very good thing. If nothing else it is a huge profit opportunity for scammers.

The USA so far has guarded the free flow of energy. If it now resticts the flow (under new management) it can squeeze the population of the world dry. The poor will suffer most. Then in the name of te poor and the workers further restrictions can be imposed.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Nanos
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Nanos »

FX [ nods in agreement with MSimon ]

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

Well in view of our differnce of opinion n another thread I gues I should reply to this.

Is global warming a scam? This is surely a scientific question. One about which we can debate, revise judgements as more evidence becomes available, etc.

Let us just suppose probability GW is NOT a scam is alpha.

We have options:

A) Take some very partial perventative action now, ramping up to major changes in economic pattern by 2050

B) We can do nothing till 2050 and then try to make major changes in economic pattern over v short timescale (10 years)

C) We can do nothing till 2050 and then, if necesary, make changes to economic pattern over next 40 years reaching A&B 2050 level by 2090.

Now, my definition of GW is not a scam, for purposes of this post, is that C will lead to disastrous for human life changes in climate. I will equally suppose that A,B will lead to considerable warming (maybe 3-4 degrees) but manageable.

All these figures are guesses but they indicate the nature of the decisions, and they are not implausible guesses.

The problem with B is that is costs MUCH more than A, because the necessary economic change is implemented over a much shorter period.

But both B & A are much cheaper than C. So unless you believe alpha is tiny (what risk do you think appropriate to run for all our grandchildren?)
A or B are better bets. maybe you think B is better bet since it costs nothing if by 2050 we KNOW that GW is a scam?

I think the main difference is alpha. You, I guess, set alpha small. Not sure how small though.

I set alpha high 0.9 or so.

Best wishes, Tom

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Tom,

You forgot to add in that not only is it a scam but we are headed for global cooling.

What if we wind up destroying our industry and in fact are making things worse? Then we will have destroyed our ability to respond. And in addition we will have to overcompensate because we were going in the wrong direction.

BTW since you are so sure of yourself could you please tell me what the optimum temperature of the earth should be? Along with the allowed variation. Please show your work.

And why does anything have to be done in 10 years? Assuming we delay a response until 2050.

And what about India and China and Europe? Those guys are screwing it up for the rest of us.

And why not plant trees for the time being?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MirariNefas
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:57 am

Post by MirariNefas »

And why not plant trees for the time being?
The Kyoto Protocol allows for tree planting as a carbon offset. Any future such agreements almost certainly will as well. I don't think it would be wise to mandate this as the only potential solution though - best to let the market figure it out. If tree planting is the best way, that's what will be done.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

Yes -
Market solution is obviously the most flexible - with carbon trading & allowable offsets. Any such system tends to have inequities and political stupidities especially when first established, because the necessary agreement means sacrificing sensible maesures to placate political & industrial interests.

But such a solution will have many years to run, and the principle is clear enough.

And, Simon, I am absolutely not against planting trees. Many of the CO2 offset companies now in business do this. There is a question about how the offset should be quantified. Also, critically, if you bring forward the entire 100 year CO2 offset to the time the tree is planted (which is what offset companies do now, to make the scheme economically attractive) you do not help with the short-term problem. So I suspect that as a quick fix to save us at some future date from inaction now tree planting won't work. But I don't know for sure, and it would be nice to see figures.

Tom

jmc
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Ireland

Post by jmc »

Oh God here we go again!

1)Carbon dioxide concentrations have changed by about a quarter since the industrial revolution.

2)There is a noticeable historic correlation between CO2 levels and global mean temperatures.

3)Today both CO2 levels are at their highest levels in 10,000 years, and we've been getting the warmest summers in centuries.

Therefore it does not seem unreasonable to put the case forward that it is likely that our CO2 emmissions are effecting the climate. Civilisation an nature have adapted to live with the world climate as it is therefore any rapid change in climate is likely to be a source of suffering damaging farmers crops.

Your wrong in thinking that the poor will be the worst affected from combating climate change, maybe the poor in the US but not the global poor. People in Bangladesh and Africa don't burn all that much in the way of fossil fuels and it is subsistance farmers which will suffer the most from climate change. Certainly that seems to be the opinion of Oxfam.

Your right in saying that computer models can't predict how the Earth's climate will respond, I suppose they are there to explore possibilities rather than certainties. But neither can you! You keep talking about global cooling, what on Earth makes you so certain than you know so much about the climate to know that we'll go into an Ice Age within a few centuries.

An the end of the day the climate was fine and now we're tinkering with it and perturbing it through the emmission of gases, we shouldn't be doing this unless we're dam sure it won't damage the climate and we're not.


Maybe some people are using global warming as a tool to forward their own agenda, but there nothing new about perverting the perception of a real problem into mobiliasing people to do what you want. After all that's what the US government did in perverting the very real threat of terrorism into an invasion of Iraq which had nothing to do with the former issue.



With the right taxation and system of incentives combating global warming could easily take the form of slightly reducing the quality of life for the rich rather than pushing the poor over the edge. And if efforts to stop global warming contribute to reducing fuel consumption and fuel prices then they may help the poor in the long run. Insulation pays for itself in 2 years.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Re2:

The correlation between warming and CO2 could be explained by CO2 evolving from warmer oceans. In fact there is a lag between temperature rise and CO2 rise.

Re3:

Solar output has been rising for 11,000 years and seems to be peaking at a much higher levels than seen in quite some time (a million years or more)

So it is possible #1 is a coincidence. This is reinforced by the 300 year solar cycle (peak to peak) which appears to be passing its peak.

===

The science re: CO2 and warming would be a lot more believable if there wasn't a wallet extraction scheme attached and if its chief proponent and chief scientist were not involved in that wallet extraction scheme.

No one is trying to tax the mass of the electron or Boltzmann's constant or the Theory of Relativity.

===

The poor in Bangladesh will be affected: their chances of rising out of poverty will be reduced. The dog that didn't bark as it were. People rarely notice the dog not barking.

===

About every 30 years for the last 120 there have been climate scares. Hot, cold, hot, cold, hot. This is the first time any one has thought to tax them and destroy the current standard of living as well. Brilliant idea I might add.

The scares seem to correlate well with switches in the PDO.

===

If you look at what people are willing to do about the global warming scare you find:

At zero cost: what ever it takes.
At $1,000 a year: not much.


When Al Gore moves in to a modest house and gives his speeches by teleconference I might change my opinion of the scam. When the next conference (in Poland) is strictly a video affair that would add veracity.

===

In the mean time here is my advice: take up a collection.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Nanos
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Nanos »

> Your wrong in thinking that the poor will be the worst affected
> from combating climate change, maybe the poor in the US
> but not the global poor

Does being in the UK count as global poor ?

Here with electric and gas prices having gone up 50% in a short space of time, us poor (I'm poor, I can speak for the poor!) are being effected already with living costs rising, food prices are up 40% here and expected to rise further soon with the price of aloaf of bread expected to double..

(Electric prices are up in part to help pay for the renewable energy contribution wind turbines/etc. make by giving them a high price for their electric per unit.)

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

I'm glad you admit that it's a conspiracy theory. Which, like all the others, is a crock.

Oh, AGW may be a crock, too, I'm not arguing that. It might even be harmful. But fearmongering that there's something sinister behind it is just ridiculous. Yeah, we're all being brainwashed, eh? All the public discourse on the subject like this is being suppressed...

What... you haven't had the liberal police banging down your door in the dark night? Better watch out. They're coming for you, MSimon!!! Oh, that's right, it's a "silent" conspiracy. Spooooky...

The same as the conspiracy theory that says that gun control is an attempt to undermine a source of freedom. You may argue that these movements will have bad unintended side-effects. But there's as much evidence that the Patriot Act is an attempt to erode our liberties through irrational fear as there is for AGW or gun control. Or that school prayer is an attempt to establish a state church. I could go on and on.

Pointing out irrationally that we have to fear fearmongering is, itself, a form of fearmongering. It's only as bad as it really is, and it's not that bad. One positive effect of so much advertising in the USA is that by the age of 8 we're all skeptics (the empirical evidence of which is my son lambasting the TV ads he sees).

Get

A

Grip


The only people that you'll convince with conspiracy theory that your side is right are those who are already on your side, and who want to be true believers in your side of the cause.

Mike

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I thought using electrical analogies for the economy was pretty good though.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Perhaps on this site. :-)

You want some more evidence that CO2 can be a positive thing? I recall that it was Assimov who informed me in the 70's about the impending ice age...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 164511.htm

How crazy is this? The study is from scientists in the UK, that crazy land of socialism. With research done in Canada! Will wonders never cease?

Mike

apouliot
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:30 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by apouliot »

If you are right, and global warming is a scam. I don't think it's a scam from all the information I saw and heard but whatever.

Even if it's a scam it's a good thing to require company to follow some environmental norm. It force them to upgrade their equipment. Better equipment usually mean lowering cost for utility, less worker needed for maintenance and more production. You also get a cleaner output from the chimney. Even if you think it don't affect the the global temperature, cleaner output help the local wildlife. And also less stuff dumped in the atmosphere mean that you have less dust that will settle on your house and in your lung. The worst thing after filter are put on chimney is after a few year you get bug in a town were there was none and also more bird.

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I think that people are oversimplifying the issue.
The climate as well as weather effects are a chaotic system in that they are affected by more than just one element.
Let me just list a few affectors:
1. Sun- activity
2. The tilt of the earth axis (the earth is slowly tumbling arround).
The more land is on the (sun related, not the magnetic) poles of the earth, the colder it gets.
3. The ocean currents. Who said that they have to stay the same for extensive periods.
4. volcanism can affect the climate both ways. It expells both large amounts of carbon dioxide (warming) as well as sulfur dioxide (cooling).
This depends on the volcano. The Krakatoa might have put more CO2 into the atmosphere in a few days than the entire humanity has ever. However the Sulfur dioxide somewhat limited the effects. In addition it was a single source somewhat limiting the spreading of the affect all over the world (it still did have affects though).
5. People often forget: We are currently in an ice age.
Just a warmer period of it, a so called interglacial. These have 40.000 year cycles. This one started 10.000 years ago.
Before this ice age started 20 million years ago, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were much higher as were the global temperatures.
6. Higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are benign for plant life. Currently plants are actually starving. An icreased plant growth would actually reduce CO2 levels.
7. The oceans can take a lot of CO2, not just because it solutes in the water, but because of the algae which are the true gree lung of the planet (not the rain forrests, which still ought to be protected though).
8. The albedo effect. If large chunks of the polar ice shelf break off (they can theoretically be as large as an average US state) and drift towards the equator, they can affect the local climate arround them quite enormously. Clouds raining off above them cause snow to fall which in return can cause the actual area of ice arround the ice berg to grow. This can increase the albedo effect, which in turn can create an additional growth of the ice shield arround the ice berg. This could now also affect ocean currents.

What I am trying to say is that the system is complex and complexity makes it very hard to make predictions, especially since we do not even fully understand what effects what has and how much.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

It is difficult, with a topic like this where many people have strong preconceptions, and there is lots of politics, to concentrate on the science.

But that is what I want to do.

jmc - you are oversimplifying. Simon is right to point out that historically CO2 has lagged temperature. And so saying "there has always been this correlation so there should be now" does not wash.

Skipjack - yes it is very complex. That is why the IPCC publish such long reports and why their reports are hedged with uncertainty. And why it has taken a very long time, during which the scientific case has got much stronger, for politicians worldwide to see that GW must be considered seriously.

The reason to be concerned is simple:
(1) We have made an unprecedentedly fast major change in CO2 concentrations over last 100 years, and it is increasing exponentially as global CO2 emmissions rise. This undoubtedly has some effect on the climate, and uncertainty should not make us worry less! The fact that CO2 has increased means that whatever mechanisms exist in the biosphere to stabilise CO2 (forests etc) are not now doing the job. And global temperatures have increased dramatically over the last 100 years in a way which cannot be explained except as GWG effects.

(2) The direct effect of CO2 as a GWG is clear and undisputed.

(3) The indirect effects, positive and negative, are very complex to estimate but much effort has been put into this, based on data from the last 50 years where we have good observations of CO2 & other variables, as well as more difficult to interpret ice core data etc. All this modelling is indeed very difficult to make predictive, because there are so many unknowns. But there are a wide range of models and the more detailed ones all indicate amplification of the basic GWG effect. The IPCC scientists are not politically-motivated clones a a body - they represent the best science we have. And if you look at peer-reviewed literature their is very little to contradict the scientific (not political) consensus. If arguments are put forward (as they have been) they can be debated and the scientific facts marshalled. This careful and time-consuming process so far has left the "GW is an uncertain but major threat" group undoubtedly the winner.

(4) There are time constants in both our economy and the global climate that mean we cannot suddenly switch off the effects of current changes, and indeed they will have some overshoot.The size of these time constants is not entirely certain (though easier to calculate than much of the problem). They mean that we have to act well in advance of making things really bad.

There is much uncertainty. But the scientific case for GW has been debated and proved in a manner that none of the previous "science scare" stories wee. Sure, in the 1980s GW was a scare story - a plausible cas could be made for it but there were many many unknowns. That has now changed - there is uncertainty but it is about the size of the effect. And the mean predictions are not good.

So there is a case for grave concern - just as one might worry seeing an enemy nation develop over 20 years a military power potentially able to overwhelm one's own forces (UK's position prior to second world war). What action should be taken - as in the case of military threat - is difficult to determine, there will be different views.

On this topic however I count as a hawk.

Best wishes, Tom

Post Reply