Pyramid Comment: May 2007

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Great Global Warming Swindle

The 'controversy' about Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle (and here) leads to a potentially dangerous situation: that the 'scientific consensus' is the only opinion that counts. The only place that the 'correct' answer will be found. The whole point is that an alternative view was aired. That it is NOT the approved view and is, therefore, to be ignored, is of great concern. Good balance of views is essential or dogma sets in. There are a number of other factors that are rarely mentioned and in maintaining silence, or attempting so to do, is tantamount to a deliberate suppression of the facts. It seems that the public should only be informed of accepted and approved dogma. It sounds like the medieval attitude that you will accept that the Earth is the centre of the universe. Or else. Arrogance has no place in science. An opinion is nothing more than opinion and every opinion is based on the same information.

ALL THE INFORMATION

A different interpretation of all these facts can produce a different outcome. In the same way that legal argument can be selective in reviewing only favourable 'facts'. Ignoring or suppressing? These amount to the same thing. Professor Carl Wunsch claims that he was "totally misled", allegedly into denying global warming and that man's CO2 was not to blame. This combination of concepts is designed to trap objective thinking into dogma.

Connecting global warming with
man's excessive CO2 production

This totally ignores the evidence of earlier periods of global warming (and cooling) before man started to burn fossil fuels. This doesn't favour the political argument whether it's pure conservation or, more likely, based on money. Consider a distance tax. Alternative views must be disclosed to the public to promote balance. But scientists cannot be seen to have doubt. Absolute assertion must be seen as the only approach whether it's right or wrong. Professor Peter Cox (University of Exeter, Climate System Dynamics) states: "I am hopeful that most of the UK public remain convinced of the reality of climate change." This smacks of attempted mind control. To think as directed.

The reality of climate change isn't at the centre of the argument. This is not being challenged, only the causes of the change.

Monday, May 28, 2007

Alcohol Warning Labels

There is talk of placing warning labels on alcohol-containing bottles and cans that explain 'units' to consumers and it is being lauded as a good thing. A similar approach hasn't done much to deter smokers from using cigarettes to get the nicotine fix by placing warning labels on cigarette packets. The promotion of the suggestion that people need to be told what healthy drinking is can be regarded as being very cynical and it clearly implies that those who don't drink (they do exist) are missing out on a real health benefit.

Safe drinking? This is a recipe for alcoholism. When does drink dependence cross over into alcoholism? Are they not the same? What is drink dependence? If you are a drinker, try going for a week without. Or even just a day. Is drinking in moderation healthy? No, it is not. Drinking alcohol has no health benefit. And those who claim that alcohol has no effect at all, even in moderation, are deluded.

Of course, simply a small amount of alcohol in the human biological system has an effect. Why have an alcoholic beverage and not simply a glass of water if you're only thirsty? Or when a small amount of stress is perceived? The use of alcohol as a "get me over this period" is just a crutch. All that "a drink" of alcohol can do is divert attention away from the cause of the stress temporarily, but the cause of the stress is still there to return as it hasn't been dealt with. The answer to problems is never found at the bottom of a glass. This can be a perpetual cycle for some as causes are never attended to and never go away. Reach for the bottle. Again. Too much tea or coffee has its dangers - so we are informed. Certainly too much caffeine is not a good idea and they are diuretics (lose body fluid).

That's paradoxical: drink alcohol under the delusion that you're thirsty and so lose fluid and need more to replace what you've lost. Rather like eating salt to quench thirst.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Meltdown Begins

Inflation (officially down to under 3%) busting pay increases of 10% are being sought. One reason being given is that property prices are off the scale to many and so are impossible to reach. Consider this discussion on the cost of living and the distance tax.

Years ago the rot set in when council house tenants were offered the option of buying the house in which they lived for 40% discount on the market price at that time. These properties in many cases were then later sold off so beginning the price rocketing. This is the Thatcher legacy coming home to roost.

So, it can be predicted that the New Labour government does not expect to be around much longer. (Unfortunately, it will be for a few more years - DA.) Plently of time to continue wrecking the UQ (aka UK) Ltd. It has made a complete mess of society and in that respect has been a successful government. It can go now in the knowledge of a job well done. The next government will just continue, but just with a different label. A different face, though the same mindset.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The Nuclear 'Choice' So Far

Alistair Darling Key Points - Energy Statement (May 2007)

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (May 2006)
Secretary of State for Scotland and at the Department for Transport
Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions (June 2001 - May 2002)
Secretary of State for Social Security (July 1998 - June 2001)
Chief Secretary to the Treasury (May 1997 - July 1998)
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury (July 1996 - April 1997)
Opposition Spokesman on the City and Financial Services (1992 - July 1996)
Opposition Home Affairs Team (1988-92)

Chancellor of the Exchequer Darling is the current Chancellor of the Exchequer. The government had reached a preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to allow energy companies to invest in nuclear power. The government would (allegedly) consult further, in a process which will run until October, before making the final decision, but in the construction industry's interest to provide a very dangerous future and in so doing making a shedload of money on the public's collective back.

Consult further? To consult would be a good start. Anyway, consult whom? Certainly not the end users. Those who will pay for it in two ways. Financially and through ill-health (at best) and death (at worst). Short-sighted government sees only money, money and more money. It's the King Midas syndrome. And lots of glory, of course.

Hitler and Stalin imagined the glory too. And Pol Pot had his lethal ideology. Kill one or two and you're defined as a murderer. Kill several and you're a serial killer, but murder a million (or two, or three) and you're described as a hero. Destroy a nation and it's genocide.

To destroy all life on Earth: globicide?

The government would consult on the "significant role" new nuclear power stations could play in cutting emissions and diversifying power supplies.

There's that term again: CONSULT. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. This suggests that something is actually happening, doesn't it? But: emissions of what? Carbon dioxide, I imagine. That's the global political spin. Even scientists are swept up into it. But not all. Not by a long way. Funding is always jeopardised and not towing the line, makes the financial supply line shrivel away.

Mr Darling said it would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, and construct and operate new nuclear plants. There were also important issues to consider, including waste.

Creating opportunities for others to make even more money. No cost to government or taxpayer? But the future will require waste management and this will be funded by the taxpayer. After all, the end user is the problem. If it wasn't for the consumer, there would be no problem. Global warming has been created by the population on Earth. Though without a problem there's no way of making money. A circular argument: man creates the problem, but without man there is no problem and so no opportunity to provide a solution and make money. So, create the problem and provide a solution.

Mr Darling said a decision was required this year because new nuclear stations took a long time to build.

Hurry along and just say, YES. Don't ask questions you're not being asked to comment. This is a democracy so say, YES.

The sooner that construction is committed, the sooner the process becomes impossible to stop. And, of course, the sooner money can be made. And the less time there is to debunk the idea that the sole culprit of global warming is CO2. This is a scam, but the belief train is well under way. When the new problem becomes radioactive waste management, the idea of global warming will become less significant. It isn't, but it will seem so. Which is worse: death by fire or by flood?

New electricity meters will come with a real-time display showing energy use from 2008 and there will be a short term offer of free displays from energy suppliers for households to 2010 and the government says it expects everyone to have a smart meter within 10 years.

I wonder how the 'roll-out' will happen. Who will be 'offered' the free meter? A two-year period to 'buy into' the scheme? To be followed by another 8 years of those paying for the device.

Don't ever forget this 2 year period of free installations (2008-2010)

BUT: this only says the usage will be shown from 2008 and that there will be a short term offer of free displays. It doesn't state there will be a 2 year period of free installation, only a 2 year real-time display showing energy use. Consider how many car speedometers 'display' to a speed of well over the potential of the car.

'Accepting' such a meter for free is, of course, a very crude bribe. 'Acceptance', presumably, like in the wheely-bin culture. An offer you can't refuse (no pun). A forced solution and without any real consultation. Another fait accompli scenario. The ducking stool philosophy: if you drown you're innocent and if you live you're guilty. Such plug-in power meters are already available at around £25 or so and have comprehensive functionality. But it is more cynical to rub the user's face in the mess he's creating while making shedloads of money in the process.

£20m for public procurement of low carbon vehicles and an extra £235m for green transport research.

£20m is just the first drop of funding (taxpayer = public procurement) as the flood gates start to open for low carbon (?) vehicles. To be followed by over 10 times as much for 'research' into green transport and so creating another new problem that will need a solution.

He said he had changed his mind on nuclear power, saying "I used to be sceptical" but had been persuaded by the need to cut carbon emissions as "nuclear is low carbon". It was also needed as Britain was running out of oil and gas, he said.

The lobbyists have been very active using their "persuasion" skills. Not that they would need to do much. Someone inarticulate and brain-dead would probably be as effective. Almost like the party faithful at the conferences: converting the converted.

He said he was reluctant to say "let's abandon nuclear" because Carbon Capture and Storage "may never work" or be available.

Reluctant? Wouldn't release the cash cow! Carbon Capture and Storage: new terminology to learn and get used to. It'll be heard enough in the very, very near future.

He said tidal power was "in its infancy" but the government wanted to encourage its development.

Government is not interested. Anything showing common sense, but not yielding money is a non-starter.

He said there had not been enough research done on the benefits of reducing carbon emissions using tidal power, with all the emphasis placed on the negative impact on the immediate environment on the River Severn and other areas where wave power could be harnessed.

Focus on the negative message and certainly not, not, not on the sensible long-term approach. Don't want to know. Not interested.

He said "there is a lot coal still available to me mined" in the UK but he could not force energy suppliers to buy it instead of imported coal.

All the talking up of CO2 emissions and then suggest the source of coal. Sulfur dioxide as a problem too. Perhaps they'd like to overlook Thatcher's contribution to the problem. The decimation of the coal-mining industry. It goes nowhere as it just costs money and never makes any. The one that helped to created the capitalist-communist? Red-herring.

He said he wanted to "encourage" the extraction of UK coal where it was economically and environmentally viable.

A non-starter. A dazzlingly-bright, red-herring.

Smart meters

Resurgence Of The Nuclear Power Issue

The expected fait accompli decision will be made today. The outcome will be as expected: nuclear power it is. Or it will be very shortly. Within 24 hours. The justification is the political exploitation of global warming. The reason given is wrong. It is not the increase in carbon dioxide alone. This is probably a very minor contributing factor, but the cyclical reasons are ignored. They are not useful to promote nuclear power. To sell it to the people.

Get them to buy in: MADNESS

The badly informed public are the tools to make MONEY. We'll all die as a result.

Radioactivity is very, very dangerous

Think just of Polonium-210. A few micrograms of this substance is lethal. Absolutely no chance of survival. Whatever the material, radioactive substances are very, very dangerous. Even in Whitehall. Politicians seem to be either just stupid or even simply ignorant. It could, of course, simply be pure

GREED

That's for wealth AND power. You decide for yourself. The alternatives are ignored. Not enough money is to be made compared to building many nuclear power stations.

It's still about MONEY and NOT survival

Defer the problem as it will go away? Of course not! The 'new' problem is nuclear waste and rendering it safe. That cannot be done. It's more likely the pursuit of money, money, money, wealth, more money. And more and more... It's going to kill us all. Probably not in my lifetime, but my children. Typical short-term lunatic thinking of the money-makers. Alistair Darling is just another architect of destruction. It's madness. Pure and simple:

MADNESS

To use the example of France as a successful nuclear economy is simply 'throwing a googly'. One country is bad enough, but now UQ (aka UK) Ltd. The additional nuclear waste that is clean because it does not produce any CO2 is absolutely very, very dangerous talk. It maybe a true statement, but is dreadfully misleading.

'Talking up' by MADMEN to make a lethal subject sound like it's a good idea to take us all down

Think of shark-infested waters: if you can't see the sharks, no doubt it's safe to swim. Go for it. Especially if Alistair Darling were to say so. He wouldn't do it. Do you remember John Gummer feeding his own daughter a beefburger at the height of the BSE outbreak? Using his own daughter to make a political point. Used a child. His own child. Nasty. Really nasty. But he was a politician and they have to show faith and support the party (political).

But by using his own child?

We are moving forward along the same road to:

Hell

It's a one-way road with no return. Ever.

MADNESS MADNESS MADNESS

Wait for 'Call me Dave' Cameron to endorse this landmark decision. I anticipate this within 24 hours of the decision being officially made. Sometime today?

The entire issue is a 'no brainer' - cabinet chief science adviser, Sir David King.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Brown, Gordon: A Toxicity Warning

The 10 years of the starter is nearly over. The main course is about to be served, so the taste of what's going to happen is already known if you're awake or, at the least, should be even if you're not.

DANGER, DANGER, DANGER
BE WARNED

He's going to continue to live a life of luxury, but next door at No. 10 Downing Street. Diplomacy being what it is, there cannot officially be a raised voice ever to be heard. Imagine the hard work of quiet bargaining. Unless, of course, you are in the cabinet or closet. Then it's probably more than that. It's certainly telling the employees what they should say or do. And how to think. Rehearsed Ignorance The trappings of office are so potent that selling your soul probably becomes second nature. No individual opinion or be sent into the wilderness.

In government it takes a courageous

person to say what they really think

PUBLICLY

Gordon Brown is a Scotsman and as PM will be in control of England and Scotland and N. Ireland. Scotland wants to govern itself and be independent of England. That's fine by me except Gordon Brown is a Scotsman and as PM could finance an independent Scotland with English money. Somehow, I just feel that it will be spun around and that the 'British Government' will still be responsible to pay for Scotland's independence.

What a crazy constitution if my (tongue-in-cheek)
suggestion actually happens!

Watch this space...

Distance Tax - Update

Distance Tax

I suggested back in February this year (2007) that it would be within 1 year that a distance tax is levied on petrol/diesel vehicle users and not the 5 years as originally spun. Well, it seems that it is nearly here, so an update of my 'well-off-base' guess is now 6 months (3 months from now). Around August, late Summer.

Well, the budget (2008) has actually put events back on track:

One year virtually to the month

Actually, I am thinking much too small as biofuels are in the BIG picture at the front of the stage (12.03.08). Hidden from view and suddenly unleashed onto the world. The suddenness is surprising, but then not surprising when some facts are understood. Biofuels were being discussed in January 2007 and my way off the mark prediction was in February 2007. I hadn't noticed. Careless. My reasoning of the problem remains roughly the same just that the solution is somewhat different, just nastier. It is still a tax on vehicle

usage

as the amount of revenue from petrol must be significantly less.

Just the greed factor kicking in?

Greed it certainly is, but the almost certain death of a large part of the global population is at risk. This is not simple greed, but is 'playing' with eugenics. Be assured that when government informs about something this is the misdirection to try and make you take your eye off the ball, while something nasty is being planned. Something appalling and a dirty little money making scheme. I wonder what will happen when the so-called 'middle rich' have no more. It's all a con.

There are no middle rich and is an illusion created to attempt to fill the ever growing gap between the (minority) very rich and the (majority) general population (poor). People actually imagine themselves to be well off. Inflation is allegedly very low. Really? With energy price rises, council tax going up and up well in excess of inflation. House prices rocketing, but salaries in no way keeping pace. Taxes up. New taxes introduced. Tax reliefs abolished. Cost of fuel. Interest rates up and that's so predictable as it's all part of the plan. Suck people into massive debt by lowering interest rates and making borrowing easier and then, when locked in, raise the cost of borrowing. It's cyclical on the money making roundabout.

Price rises everywhere, but inflation is still allegedly low

Rises here and there of 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%... increases, but inflation still (officially) low.

Wake up, Wake up, Wake up

The problem is that when you awaken and exit from one nightmare you enter another true living hell. Unless you have 'real' money. And the history of that is very questionable. Where did the phrase 'middle rich' come from? Any ideas? Banking Master Plan, 23rd October 2007. Whatever happens, less fuel use or not, still a shed load of profits will be 'earned'. And guess where that will end up...

Marks & Spencer

£1bn - Almost

Profits. And that's a lot of redistribution. It has little to do with an ethos of not resting on their laurels and making business advances. Or giving the public what it wants. More to do with:

"there's more money out there and we can get it. The more that comes in then the more the executives can 'earn' in the way of bonus"

This is the 'spin talk' (euphemism) as I see it.

04.07.2019 - Hussar, Margate

Any further involvement with this business will not happen (petrol, stores, garage shops). A price increase of 27% saw to that. Maybe only a sandwich but an increase of 40p on top of 150p is just arrogance - and greed. What next? Petrol price hike. Store price rise on the way? The contempt this demonstrates is nauseating:

M & S products are so good
that the idiots will pay anything

Many other businesses offer very acceptable products at very reasonable prices.

17.03.2020 - Hussar, Margate

Just a week ago, a snack meal (bacon bap) with a hot + soft drink was shown for sale at £4=00 and was posted together (opposite sides of the entrance) with an old photo of the same combination (worded/font only slightly different) for £3=50. Clearly, the change-over was not complete (simply very badly organised). The increase is just under 15%.

Blair To Cameron: The Transfer Of A Legacy

The class war continues

The muddied waters attempt to seduce opinion, but if there's one thing in which Blair has been positive it's transparency. The training to see through the bullshit and spin has been wonderful. A real 'blinder'. Call me Dave has made it clear that the way to effect better control and gain more and more and more... power as a result is for the rise of the self-proclaimed 'upper class' and the submission of the lower working class proles (proletariat). Nothing new here, it's all just more transparent.

A Writer's Radar

This label concept is only to be expected from those like him. Cameron, in particular, should be ever-closely monitored.

Cameron's ideology? Destroy the opportunities for everyone who is a threat and it's easier for anyone else who is in the 'upper class' to be successful regardless of real ability. Rather like the inexperienced (ie none) graduate army officer straight from university or college and automatically, knowing very little, placed in command of very experienced soldiers. I know who I'd rather have as a 'boss'.

Graduates commonly come from university into industry needing to be retrained - properly - into the workings of real situations. On the ground and not on the pages of a text book. Common sense can only be acquired through experience.

The current case in point is the complete destruction of the educational system. Removal of the grammar school and replacement by the 'Academy' system. Another idea lifted from the USA (for example). Sounds interesting but it is only a different very substandard ideology to keep the 'prols' under control. As a glimpse of the future, consider a potentially elitist system that will exclude the majority. The abandonment of a large part of society will enable easy control of this element by those currently being groomed.

This is very anti-Conservative policy and arrogance ensures the 'they'll still vote for us, the suckers', attitude.

Student Loans: Elitism And Hypocrisy

The real fun would start when these people tumble to the realisation that they are facing a future war among their own 'class' and they have created the situation themselves already. The controlling element to control the current controlling element will rise. Remember that shit rises. It's quite laughable. It really will be, but even more than it is now (22.05.07).

Blinded by the acquisition of power and money.

Call me Dave, the one born with a 'platinum spoon' in the mouth, comes from a background denied to the majority. This minority background can afford the private education. Retention of organisations like Eton and Oxford ensure the rise of the members of that so-called 'elite' uncontaminated by the 'prols'.

This then ensures that the appropriation of wealth by self-seeking groups remains achievable. Look to the MP's who want to exempt themselves from the laws of 'Freedom of Information'. After making everyone else subject to this concept, they would like to be left alone to do as they like without controls.

All very transparently because it would seem that they no longer care about being discreet.

The Conservative party is not only shooting itself in the foot, but is in the process of blasting the entire leg completely off. When they realign the aim of the gun, the head will just get in the way and ...

Revolution? I don't know, but consider who controls the police and army. It's why we have such forces. To be used to control the masses when a situation needs to be brought under control by less subtle means. Spin will have it that the revolutionary element comprises the bad guys.

Look to Iraq, UQ (aka UK) Ltd and the USA and identify the bad guy. If you can. If you dare.