Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

GM: Feeding The World Controversy

This link is to EcologistOnline

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Global Warming Hysteria List


This is not original: Bob's Bites


In-house (USA) subversion?

Search Box: Global Warming
 

    Noted

    A Nuclear Future
    Banking Master Plan
    Climate Change: The Convenient Lie
    Controlled Demolition - 911
    Critical Illness Insurance
    Debunking The Reasons For Global Warming
    Ethanol Combustion
    Food: The Solution To The Problem
    G20 Summit
    Madness Of Nuclear Power
    Nobel Peace Award In Defense Of A Lie
    Politics In The UK And USA
    Restructuring Nearing Completion
    Student Loans
    Windscale 10th October 2007 (50 Years On)

    Thursday, April 24, 2008

    Coccolithophores

    Coccolithophores (Science)

    Wednesday, April 23, 2008

    Chancellor In Control

    The current Chancellor of the Exchequer is Alistair Darling and examining his background provides little evidence of any assumed competence in financial affairs. Does Darling actually have any idea of what is happening in the very confusing global financial crisis? Bank inter-lending is apparently a practice that is not happening. The failure to lend to each other has the effect of keeping public borrowing rates up. This is convenient for banks that appear to have created the monstrous situation and is a wonderful justifiction to maintain high interest rates even when the Bank of England has opened the taps to pour in £50bn of liquidity. There's something seriously wrong with this logic unless it's the obvious conclusion that the situation is actively being engineered to maximise any payback. The inundation of information from all quarters about matters relating to the global financial crises does have the major benefit of adding to the confusion and masking the affairs that affect a great many people.


    It is effectively a smokescreen
    creating disinterest by overload

    The incredible situation is taking shape that a bank (RBS) is asking shareholders to lend it money (£12bn) so to maintain credibility. The bank defends its strategy. Amazing? Not really as the banks have been lending money on vapour for a long, long time. And to each other, but no longer. The mists continue to clear so that the situation becomes more transparent and, paradoxically, confused. Virtual Money The Increase Of Worth And Value The real money is that which lenders pay the banks when servicing loans. The original loan can be extended based on theoretical money and repaid capital represents the gain the banks will make on nothing. There's at least one serious problem, though probably several that 'simply' manifest simultaneously creating massive confusion. And it's very confused. Running for cover though nobody realising that the tail covers are in place. It's all got to be paid for somehow and it won't be the banks funding their own folly. Games are being openly played in front of an audience that doesn't understand what is happening. This arrogance is depressing, yet very predictable. Quite nauseating. Rather like a scientist explaining the depths of quantum mechanics to the (average) ten year old. It's all an esoteric art to the uninitiated.

    Energy Price Escalation

    MEP Expenses

    Devil's Advocate and blogs Fraud claim report Fraud report made public Whistleblower OLAF: European anti-fraud office
    • Office Européen De Lutte Anti-Fraude
    This could just be an out of context illusion, but regardless of the extent of the 'truth' it is an absolute disgrace. It seems that all the 'politicians' are at it on this gravytrain. What do they do, anyway? Perhaps simply spend their time and enormous amounts of public money filling out expense reports? Nice work if you can get it (or if you want it). What a waste of space to be nothing more than a well-paid dullard. What is a Parasite? Superlatives

    Tuesday, April 22, 2008

    Ministry Of Justice

    Ministry of Constitutional Affairs
    • 9 May 2007: The responsibilities of the Department for Constitutional Affairs have transferred to the new Ministry of Justice. This site is retained for archive and information purposes only and may not contain the most up to date information (as at 22.04.08).
    Freedom of Information Act
    • 9 May 2007: Responsibility for freedom of information has passed from the Department for Constitutional Affairs to the Ministry of Justice. The information on this site is still current (as at 22.04.08).
    Ministry of Justice

    Monday, April 21, 2008

    Gas, Oil And The Whale

    The UQ (aka UK) Ltd government assumes its usual arrogant stance and in the pursuit of either money or wealth in some respect walks roughshod over all comers. This time the whale. Even after warnings from its own officials regarding "potentially devastating effects" on a critically endangered species of whale, the effort to hide this appalling situation has spanned three years. The Freedom of Information Act, and only after a High Court ordered documents to be disclosed, has revealed that drilling off Sakhalin Island in the far east of Russia, could cause the extinction of one of the world's most vulnerable populations of the marine mammals. It has taken three years to force this issue originally made by Friends of the Earth. Even before this on 14th March 2003, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had noted "substantial concerns about this project" and had "significant worries about the possible impacts" on the endangered species and that "any losses are likely to be significant to its future". And "also concerned about longer-term impacts on this population of (sic) disturbances caused by mining and explosions, or oil spills".

    • Such concerns and potentially BIG money never make for good partners. Total conflict, but money (nearly) ALWAYS wins.

    The government's Export Credits and Guarantees Department (ECGD) supports the export industry and has been flexing its (allegedly) powerful muscles. It has agreed to act as sponsor and bankroll controversial drilling for oil and gas. The $20bn (£10bn) project by Sakhalin Energy Investment Company has a major partner in Shell now nears completion and is to exploit a "world-class oil and gas province" at "the end of the world" (Chekhov).


    • Somewhat inconveniently, the western grey whales use these waters as their (only known) feeding ground and only around 120 survive today. They are listed as "critically endangered" and as such could become extinct simply through the demise of only one breeding female each year for three years.

    In March 2004, the (ECGD) wrote to the Sakhalin Energy Investment Company stating that it had approved conditional support for several UQ (aka UK) contracts for the project. Both the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Foreign Office voiced objections, but (presumably) since Sakhalin Island is north of Japan (Hokkaido) and lies off the coast of eastern Russia in the Sea of Okhotsk it is so far from the UQ (aka UK) it can safely be ignored. Predictably, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) that became the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) has "no concerns at this stage".


    • This department (BERR) has been making noises recently regarding energy issues.

    The WWF and Corner House (Saudi Inquiry) as environment campaigners took the (ECGD) decision to judicial review and last month the Sakhalin Energy Investment Company withdrew its request for backing. Friends of the Earth, Phil Michaels (head of legal): "It's shameful that (ECGD) should even consider supporting such a project and even more so that it should keep official warnings of the consequences secret for so long." Shameful, maybe, but this would almost certainly have been kept diclosed until any deal had been done and the money had been 'made'. It's predictable when only money is considered. Any climate change implications are disregarded as not important and this serves to illustrate the truly contemptible attitude of that human subspecies (aka low-life) that worships money. That the possible extinction of a mammal that has existed on Earth for 30 million years is at stake has absolutely no bearing.

    Genetically Modified Crops: The Myth

    Genetic Modification (19.04.2005)

    A study at the University of Kansas (allegedly) has shown that genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops rather than improving yields and concludes that GM is not the answer to world hunger. On the face of it, this should finish off the apparently unstoppable drive to force GM food onto a world that doesn't want it. GM soya produces about 10% LESS food than its conventional equivalent and this directly contradicts those that advocate the technology.

    Many farmers had changed over to the GM crop, but had "noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions" and "people were asking the question 'How come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'", when a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety were grown in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre compared to 77 bushels from a non-GM crop. Though it is noticeable (by its apparent absence) that such claims are not obviously made public. The crop was engineered to resist Roundup (Monsanto).

    Roundup is a 'glyphosphate' weedkiller and is implicated with the exclusive survival of Monsanto cotton, soybeans and corn. This constitutes a virtual monopoly. Glyphosphate itself is an example of a very simple organophosphate.

    Alleged benefits of Monsanto products

    Earlier research seems to be confirmed (University of Nebraska) where another Monsanto GM soya produced 6% LESS than its closest conventional relative and 11% LESS than the best non-GM soya available. This suggests two factors may apply:

    • it takes time to modify a plant genetically
    • better conventional plants are being developed
    Monsanto said (19.04.08) that the soya had not been engineered to increase yields and so was not surprised by the decline, just the extent. Monsanto is currently developing one that would have increased yields and the issue of such a statement in any case makes for very convenient timing.

    The physiology of plants is now reaching the limits of productivity and in an analogous consideration to human runners, the limit of human advance was probably set with the sub four-minute mile and the three-minute mile is highly improbable regardless of any advances in training. GM is not a panacea for world hunger according to the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Professor Bob Watson as chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), and director of the study, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, simply stated:

    NO

    The Earth Policy Institute predicted food price increases over a year ago and more recently in January 2008, a connection between ethanol and food price increases.

    The United States Department of Agriculture admits that the time lag could result in decreased yields. Since the GM crops did worse than conventional plants, this suggests that the very process of genetically modifying the plant actually depresses productivity. GM cotton in the US declined even when GM technology took over. During the 6 years between 1996 and 2002, average yields went down.

    The long-term genetic effects are unknown, but short-term it's all about money and profit. As of December 2007, Brazil's moves in biofuel technology appear successful even though deforestation to pave the way for sugar cane crops has a major deleterious effect on the composition of the (global) atmosphere. IF climate change is caused by CO2 and mankind's efforts increase it, then destruction of the forests is not likely to move in the right direction for a solution. Ridiculous 'carbon trading' is simply idiotic and typically mimics the Winners And Losers (aka redistribution) principle.

    Paradoxically, the Luddite view would be to suspend any moves towards change and considered in a derogatory way. Even though 'putting the brakes on' would be prudent, but money talks loudest and has the most number of listeners. The lone voice in the wilderness is ignored as the wilderness grows with ever mounting aggressiveness. And without any GMOs.

    • If oil use is curtailed, how is the industry going to counter moves to reduce output? After all, it is a huge revenue earner for the oil companies and governments and such an attack on profits will not be taken lightly. The masking attempts are to misdirect into believing real effort is being expended on minimising CO2 creation, yet with the concomitant belief that the business of 'oil' will just accept this attack. Unlikely. Money ALWAYS comes first. It's the 'richest man in the graveyard' scenario.
    The common sense long-term view must involve education and changes to adapt to global life-styles that do not use oil-based products. Or nuclear. Moves towards a dark age are clearly seen on the horizon and a somewhat similar scenario that allegedly caused the extinction of the dinosaurs is coming towards us. A very sudden forced situation. So it must inevitably be with mankind. It's not just that some resources are not sustainable, but that life itself is not sustainable. The growing global population and rapidly dwindling resources create a totally unsustainable situation. Any progress is obviously in the opposite direction: a reducing global population AND a growing renewable resource.


    We either learn to adapt or disappear from the face of the Earth


    There is no other option available. Constantly, any possible answer to any 'challenge' is always considered in terms of money. Never survival. Ask anyone who has been forced to face death and inquire about priorities. What might a wealthy individual give to 'buy' some air in a confined room? Would they kill any other occupant so that they could use the air? Questions that can be ducked as they are not applicable, but they do apply. Now. Like wishing to learn to swim when out at sea in a capsized vessel. Or heading towards a (very) solid object at speed. The change of direction should be made before it's too late. It cannot be made afterwards.

    Saturday, April 19, 2008

    Vehicle Tax - Milking The Cash Cow

    The cost of vehicle excise duty (tax) as on 13th March 2008 has undergone a major reorganisation. Vehicles (cars, motorcycles, light goods vehicles and trade licences) registered

    before 1st March 2001:

    Engine size

    Up to 1549(cc) £120 (12 months) £66 (6 months)
    Over 1549(cc) £185 (12 months) £101.75 (6 months)

    after 1st March 2001

    Band
    (CO2 g/km)

    A: Upto 100
    Not Applicable Not Applicable
    B: 101-120 £35
    (12 months) Not Applicable
    C: 121-150 £120
    (12 months) £66.00 (6 months)
    D: 151-165 £145
    (12 months) £79.75 (6 months)
    E: 166-185 £170
    (12 months) £93.50 (6 months)
    F: Over 186 £210
    (12 months) £115.50 (6 months) - reg before 23.03.06
    G: Over 226 £400 (12 months) £220 (6 months) - reg on/after 23.03.06

    The difference between 6 months' road tax and 12 months' tax is always an extra 20%. If this was reduced to 5-10% (administration charge) then more people would probably be able to 'stump up the readies' and stay legal rather than contribute nothing and be a criminal. As everything is costing more and more, then sensibly road tax cuts deeply into household budgets. But the government is greedy and this simply wouldn't do even though in a year nothing is lost and much is to be gained. But rocket science was never in the chancellor's lexicon.

    Overall motorists will pay an estimated £1.2bn in extra road tax between April 2009 and March 2011. And a "showroom tax" will be up to £950. The deferred increase of 2p/litre until October 2008 (from 1st April) presumably excludes duty and VAT. Fuel duty will rise by ONLY 0.5p/litre in 2010, the lowest increase in three years. But add VAT and this will round-up to ONLY 0.6p or 3p/gallon. This equates to a yield of an extra 12p/gallon. Or for the average 'fill' of just 10 gallons: ONLY 120p. This, of course, is before the inevitable oil price hikes.

    Also announced was the concept of road pricing (distance tax): funding for trials next year to examine how charging by the mile would change drivers' behaviour. Charging will happen, the issue is simply how to maximise the yield. It is suggested that 'road pricing could replace fuel duty eventually. Car tax will remain. It's still a case of how the 'in-your-face' back door stealth taxes are introduced: aka creative government. To increase the tax yield, an additional six new bands are introduced to the original seven taking the total up to 13: from A to M.

    According to the Chancellor (Alistair Darling) the majority of motorists would pay less road tax or be no worse off even though rates will rise by up to £90 for many medium-sized family cars. What constitutes a medium-sized family car: between Band B and Band M. The official figures are confused and very misleading. The new rates of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) are from Bands A to M. However, Band D is between 151-165 (g/km), yet the band limit jumps from 161-170 (g/km). There is no 165 (g/km) band end-point. The same for Band E: 166-185 (g/km). No end-point for 185 (g/km). It jumps over FROM 181 to 200 and directly INTO Band F.

    Examination of the 2010-11 first year rate duty (new car) and 2010 -11 standard rate duty (continued taxation) demonstrates the "showroom tax":

    (g/km) 2010-11 (new)

    To 100 £0 (thereafter £0): new car - no road tax (first year only)
    101-110 £0 (thereafter £20): new car - no road tax (first year only)
    111-120 £0 (thereafter £35): new car - no road tax (first year only)
    121-130 £0 (thereafter £95): new car - no road tax (first year only)
    131-140 £115 (thereafter £115): "showroom tax" = £0
    141-150 £125 (thereafter £125): "showroom tax" = £0
    151-160 £155 (thereafter £155): "showroom tax" = £0
    161-170 £250 (thereafter £180): "showroom tax" = £70
    171-180 £300 (thereafter £210): "showroom tax" = £90
    181-200 £425 (thereafter £270): "showroom tax" = £155
    201-225 £550 (thereafter £310): "showroom tax" = £240
    226-255 £750 (thereafter £430): "showroom tax" = £320
    Over 255 £950 (thereafter £455): "showroom tax" = £495

    Up to 130 g/km attracts no road tax with a new vehicle, but thereafter the higher rates become effective. The range 131-160 g/km has no showroom tax, but the new Band rates apply.

    So, to encourage debt, it could be seen as saving money by getting a car a year before the new rates come into force. But, of course, a budget will happen before 2010 in 2009. Notably, the government department (DVLA) can easily 'remind' the registered owner when the tax is due and check that insurance cover is in place before renewing on-line payments, but cannot issue a windscreen notification disc that the car is insured for the registered owner (the applicant). The law, if necessary, must be enhanced to force the car to be insured before it is used on the road, but the very menacing TV licence (outsourced) 'advertising' cannot be replicated to cover cars.

    One of the most galling moves is the imposition of a higher tax in 2008 on a car purchased before 2001 in a dreadfully (but typical) retrospective move.


    One of the most galling moves is to

    Thursday, April 17, 2008

    Alcohol Addiction And The Hook

    Addiction to alcohol is at an alarming and critical level. The clear aim is to hook 'em young and then the addicted (alcoholic) becomes a lifelong supporter of the 'drinks' business. Typically, government is the parasite that feeds off addiction. Tobacco is another trade-off industry. Trade-off the product tax yield against the health of the consumer. Any discouraging comments, and there are those that do care, are offset by the treasury and taxation duty on alcohol and tobacco in the UQ (aka UK) Ltd money machine.

    Governments are labelled as not doing enough to 'encourage' people to limit their excessive drinking habits. As a revenue earner, this is unlikely to ever happen. Even being generous, people who drink excessive amounts of alcohol have the minimal of drink dependency and quite possibly are addicted to alcohol, both physiologically and psychologically. The difficulty of stopping undesirable habits is notorious. Consider smoking. The desire to stop must be present as regarding smoking as a reward is doomed to fail. The mind-set must incorporate the true (not deluded) desire to stop. Weight loss and diets are similar. The psychological delusion is very, very powerful. Ask a cocaine or heroin user (addict) to simply stop or 'cut down'. Addiction of any kind is a dreadful condition. Any 'dependency' may begin with a feeling of satisfaction, but eventually turns into the dread of the failure to control. The habit is controlling the user (addict).

    Effects of Alcohol

    What other motive is there for providing larger glasses of cheap wine than to create a growth in the drink-consumer market? The aim is for increased profits and that means greater sales. That the consumer is likely to die young through either alcohol itself or an accident caused by alcohol doesn't matter to the irresponsible greed-principled purveyors of alcoholic 'beverages'. Typically, and with gut wrenching cynicism, Mark Hastings from the British Beer & Pub Association:

    • "Way back in the 1980s there was a huge customer storm being driven about the fact that people felt short changed in pubs because they were serving 125ml. If people were coming through in increasing numbers asking for 125s, then the one thing you can guarantee is that pubs would start producing them."
    This was nearly 30 years ago and a lot should have been learned since those hedonistic days, but about the dangers of alcohol and not the greed that drowns in it.

    Another remark concerns "Passive drinking and flawed thinking" and the suggestion that:


    • “Passive drinking is about as sensible an idea as passive eating or passive driving. Such an indiscriminate approach restricts the freedoms and hits the pockets of ordinary hard-working families. It also wastes huge amounts of Government time and taxpayers' money. Most importantly, it totally fails to target and tackle the problem – this is about the bad and criminal behaviour of a few irresponsible individuals. Let’s hold them to account and make them pay for their behaviour – not demonise the entire population of Britain.”
    The phrase "hits the pockets of ordinary hard-working families" is rather patronising as it implies selling alcohol in dangerous amounts apparently doesn't have any consequences. The attitude of many young people is that life without alcohol is no life. And a whole lifetime with that attitude. This is a very serious problem and exacerbated by selling more and more alcohol. Shareholders pockets are more important than the individual whose health will suffer. That's business. New drinkers (and smokers) are growing up in the next generation, so if people die young it does not matter. There is always the next crop of youngsters to target. The arguments are essentially identical regarding tobacco (nicotine) and smoking.

    Around 14% of pubs and wine bars have already abandoned the 125ml measure in favour of either 175ml or 250ml sizes. The larger size is one-third of a standard bottle. Spirits often sell as "doubles" as the 'standard' measure and it's "all hands to the pump" to 'get pissed fast'. It seems the "double" is the default measure and the "single" is obtained only by explicitly asking for the smaller measure. But once intoxicated early in a session, it can only result in being paralytic when the night is still young. Paralytic is dangerous enough, yet to continue drinking will end up in a hospital or even a mortuary as death almost inevitably supervenes.

    People are not particularly aware of alcohol units, yet still want to stay within safe limits. It is difficult, if not impossible, to over-eat as physically gorging on food will result in retching as the stomach is too full. Alcohol is not the same. Drinking beyond that excess quantity is all too easy and here is the problem:

    When to stop?

    Mental distortion and confusion clouds any thinking that might remain and drinking more possibly seems a good idea. The exact opposite of eating. Too much food can be 'thrown up' and the stomach will be automatically emptied. Up to a point the same can happen with alcohol, but once the Class A Drug is absorbed by the body and enters the blood it cannot be removed except by the body metabolism. Too much in can be too late to get it out.

    Tuesday, April 15, 2008

    Nuclear Reactor Defects

    A Nuclear Future
    Windscale: 50th Anniversary

    The French agency having responsibility for nuclear safety in France (ASN) has uncovered defects in the construction of the European Pressure Reactor (EPR) reactor that will become the design template for the next generation of nuclear power stations due to be built in Britain. In the steel liner, a quarter of the welds are not up to welding norms and cracks have been found in the concrete base essential for containing radioactivity. The only other reactor of its type being built in the world is on the Finnish island of Olkiluoto in the Gulf of Bothnia. An earlier report by the Finnish safety authority (STUK) was instrumental in putting the reactor two years behind schedule, three years after construction had begun and is believed to have been responsible for increasing the cost by 50%. If similar overruns happened in the UK schedule, the building programme could even be abandoned. Certainly, in theory and sensibly. Any flaws in construction are always unacceptable and especially now that these doubts are known before construction has begun, it must stop plans in its tracks until the reasons for the defects are fully understood.

    Nuclear Power Goes Ahead

    "The technical and organisational preconditions for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant are created during the construction phase of the project".
    Faults have been found in the formulation and pouring of the concrete and there appears to be an "insufficient" course of action in preparing for concreting and "insufficiency of technical control".


    • The French (EPR) reactor is being constructed by Électricité de France (EDF) at Flamanville in Normandy, France and expects to build four more of them in Britain for £10bn
    • EDF cites reports in technical journals saying that the French nuclear authorities believe the construction of the reactors is satisfactory and that progress is being made on the issues raised. This comment makes it clear that a belief in satisfactory (ie an implied minimum) construction standards is acceptable and that progress implies that these satisfactory standards need to be raised. The extreme dangers involved with nuclear power demand a minimum of the highest standards, but such standards do not mean safe standards or safety. There is only an implication of safety.
    EDF states that "quality and safety" are its "absolute priority" and that "none of the points made by ASN has direct implications on the delivery of the projecor on the safety of the future reactor". However, these faults found on both the French and Finnish sites do reflect a lack of building experience in nuclear reactor technology. Similar problems can be expected when construction begins in Britain. A shortage of skills in nuclear construction "will put Britain's nuclear plans in jeopardy". Madness Of Nuclear Power Nuclear power and sense do not make for a comfortable marriage though Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy appear to be making attempts at that marriage and may well be helping to sell this possibly defective technology worldwide.
    • Dr. James Gordon Brown graduated from Edinburgh with First Class Honours MA in 1972 and stayed on to complete his PhD (which he gained in 1982), titled The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-29. This disappearing doctorate is like a flag of convenience.
    • Similar to Dr Steven Ladyman (PhD research was in natural isotopic abundances of elements). Dr Ladyman entered government in 2003, with the position of junior minister at the Department for Health and the salutation Dr could create a connection with medical matters. There isn't one. Interestingly, when Tony Blair resigned as prime minister, Dr Ladyman left government.

    Such safety issues that illustrate (dangerously) defective products do not bode well for either a way of 'creating' money or ensuring safety.
    The only safe standards are to abandon nuclear issues completely and face the scenario of alternative energy sources. The effects will be major of that there is no doubt, but the alternative is the ultimate meltdown and destruction of the global population. The Earth will recover in a few million years.

    Blair Pontificates About Conscience

    Tony Blair "didn't do God" when he was prime minister of UQ (aka UK) Ltd, but having 'left' office abandons that stance to now "do God" by converting from presumably nothing in particular to Catholicism and setting up the Faith Foundation. A heathen is a disbeliever and to be nothing in particular does not constitute being a heathen, but it does seem he has found something that is bigger than his own superinflated ego. Logically, there is an ulterior motive behind 'discovering faith' and it just took more than the 10 years of 'power' and the attempted subjugation of the British people to notice it. Now into 'spinning' the god angle.
    "Faith affects everything you do"
    Tony Blair
    The convenience and the lucrative bible bashing USA no doubt is just an unavoidable coincidence. Talking at the converted is what he still does. Many of those who elected him as prime minister would unconvert him, but he's gone. He declares that he wants to "awaken the world's conscience" and being EU president and an envoy to the Middle East will presumably help to wake up his own. It's a start, but the hypocrisy of this so-called 'leader' who took a nation into the illegal war in Iraq is absolutely breathtaking.
    The issue of religious faith will be of the same significance to the 21st Century as political ideology was to the 20th Century. In an era of globalisation, there is nothing more important than getting people of different faiths and therefore cultures to understand each other better and live in peace and mutual respect; and to give faith itself its proper place in the future.
    Tony Blair
    • Q. How has your faith personally affected your career?
    • A. I know who I am and whose I am. I don’t have big worldly goals. I never had a goal to be on a series on television or in a bunch of movies. There is no financial goal I am trying to reach. I am just doing the everyday. So when amazing things happen, I just look at it as a benefit; as a blessing. I didn’t hurt anybody to get anywhere, I didn’t step on anybody to get anywhere, and I would still be doing just fine if I was at home doing the 9-5. Same blessing.
    First Lady Freebie He spoke recently to The Times about the rôle his faith now plays in his work. That's an admission that it never did before. Months ago (May 2007). The time he'd started talking up 'faith' AND leaving office. The perception of trouble is illustrated by comments made that link politics and religion. Taking a nation into an illegal war with Iraq clearly is nothing when compared to the imagined problems of justifying 'faith' to that nation.
    • "If you are somebody of faith, it affects your politics, it affects everything you do. But when I was PM, if I had given interviews on faith, I'd have just ended up with a great load of trouble. People will think this is a piece of spin, but I've always been as interested in religion as in politics. I see this, over time, as the rest of my life's work."
    • "I believe in, and I hold the doctrines (ideology) of, the Christian faith. But I think that when you start to engage in that type of thing - that you'd actually be better off if you converted to my faith - if you're not incredibly careful about how you approach that conversion, that's actually what leads to a lot of confrontation and difficulty."

    Monday, April 14, 2008

    Aircraft Pollution

    The conditioning continues: air travel is OK, but cars use fuel derived from oil and care must be taken over every drop 'wasted'. Car drivers must also be punished because they are the cause of the climate change. It is as though aircraft do not use oil-based fuels. It's illogical nonsense. The amount of fuel used by the total number of aircraft around the globe is enormous, yet doesn't enter the public imagination as attempts are always made to conceal the issue. It is effectively ignored. That there is a connection between human use of oil-waste products (petrol) and climate change is not in dispute, but in the context of size, it is more like comparing an ocean to a swimming pool.


    • The trade of CO2 use is a business and represents the most obvious and cynical part of it all. Land-based vehicles produce any exhaust gases locally. They do not travel far and are totally at the mercy of the winds. Aircraft pollute the global atmosphere by actually taking their exhaust with them. As an instance, a long-haul flight to Australia from Britain will cause a trail of exhaust fumes half-way around the Earth and a great deal of it near the point of origin at take-off.
    Aircraft are among the worst polluters because of the distance involved and it appears that taking the pollution with them absolves them from 'guilt'. They are innocent bystanders when everybody else is guilty of aiding and abetting global warming and climate change and it's probably the greatest scam of all time.

    So far

    We have had the (still alive and well) Apollo 'hoax' and can look ahead to a Mars equivalent. No human can possibly survive the journey. The Moon is not likely either and it is somewhat closer. A few days exposed to the hostile environment of space against several months. Ridiculous. And for what? Evidence that some form of primitive life may have existed on another planet? It does not matter. Even if there is some resource, the global population would not be privy to this information, just expected to finance its collection. It's a method of justifying the extraction of public money to be used for other purposes. Making war and effecting control over people costs money.

    The cynical part?

    The prisoner pays for his own subjugation and incarceration for having done absolutely nothing. Theft by stealth understates the real crime. Those who 'spend' the money should be the ones locked up to protect the rest of us...

    from them!

    Sunday, April 13, 2008

    Food: A Solution To The Problem

    The problem:

    The price of rice in India has rocketed and the potential for profiteering is exemplified by the cost of importing rice and the price it sells for. Basmati rice is now sold for between 80-100 rupees (£1-1.25) a kilo. The cost of buying the commodity from Vietnam is $708 (£360) for 1000kg. This corresponds to about £1250 per tonne. The selling price is almost x4 the original purchase price. A markup of 400%. It's inflationary and highly profitable for a trader, but very expensive for the end user. The consumer of an essential product.

    Rice

    The growth of the biofuel trade will disadvantage the consumer again as more farmers grow corn instead of rice. Cars fed on fuel does not promote a logical thought process, unless profit is the driving force. Factors like drought conditions and crop-pest infestations should pave the way for GM and Monsanto and this is another RAND-type scenario, especially when taken in context with other factors. Harvest yield of the one will be reduced in favour of the other. That's inevitable as a trade-off between the two must happen.

    Create the problem and provide the solution


    • Riots in Senegal, Cameroon, and Burkina Faso
    • Protests in Mauritania, Ivory Coast, Egypt and Morocco
    • "Tortilla riots" in Mexico
    • Marches by children in Yemen
    • Global prices of wheat up by 130%, soya (87%), rice (74%), corn (31%).
    • Food crises in 36 countries according to the UN Food And Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
    • More expensive pasta and bread in Italy
    • Price of miso (fermented rice and barley mix) up in Japan
    • France and Australia launch inquiries into rising food prices
    • In Britain, bread and wheat prices rise in proportion
    • Governments begin to negotiate secretive barter arrangements: Ukraine and Libya close to a deal on wheat
    • Egypt and Syria have signed a rice-for-wheat swap
    • Philippines fails in a rice deal with Vietnam and massive queues to buy rice
    • Cereals, meat, eggs and dairy products become more expensive
    • Prices expected to remain high for at least 10 years (FAO)
    • World Food Programme cutting food handout rations to 73 million people in 78 countries
    Economic growth in China, India, Brazil and Russia has seen meat consumption increase by 150% since 1980 as economic growth continues. And 40% in India over the last 15 years. The problem is made worse since chickens and cattle are fed on corn so there are the signs of a war on the horizon between the human for food and the animals that need the food to grow so to produce eggs and milk and ultimately their meat after slaughter. It takes 8kg of grain to yield 1kg meat. The competition is heightened yet more since biofuels enter the equation and helped to raise grain prices. Biofuels and the UK Biofuels, Tax Revenue And GM George Bush wants 15% of American cars to run on these products by 2017 and trebling maize production would be essential. In Europe, transport fuels should be 5.75% from an ethanol:petrol or ethanol:diesel mixture by 2010 and oil and corn prices are already effectively moving together. Upwards. The potential for manipulating the outcomes is enormous. These figures must be taken with great caution and are probably reflect gross underestimation since the population grows at an exponential rate.
       The younger generation gets older and adds to the number of cars on the road. The demand for fuels will also grow at an exponential rate. The increase in fertiliser prices has been a result of oil price increases. The common factor is the global population growth. It's out of control and getting worse as the race for economic growth continues at an exponential rate. The global population gets larger at an alarming rate without any sign of attempts to slow it. The reverse is apparent with programmes such as heavily discounted IVF In Africa. This will only make the problem worse. The global population cannot be sustained now so projections of 9.5bn in 2050 from the current 6.2bn (2008) are extremely worrying. The global demand for food is expected to double by 2030. Climate change with both droughts and floods are affecting harvests and government policies have their impact. Deforestation has its part to play too. The rich world subsidises agriculture to enrich the farmers and not feed the world. Self-protectionism comes into the game as the industrial world notices that the effective monopoly of food production is threatened. The rush to produce biofuels is starting to receive comment.

    At last

    Britain's new chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, has said that cutting down rainforest to produce biofuel crops was "profoundly stupid" and "very hard to imagine how we can see a world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and, at the same time, meet the enormous increase in the demand for food". Sense.

    At last

    The old Chief Scientist, Sir David King and the non-science establishment attitude that simply accepts dogma and promotes the climate change issue as accepted and completely understood. It promotes conditioning and complete acceptance.

    Madness and very confused thinking

    RAND Corporation What is the reason for letting the global population increase? The more people the more money that can be extracted from governments through aid schemes. It all gets reduced to money in the end. The race to make more money will cause the existing population ultimately to suffer. Massive problems are being stacked up to be dealt with in the future and it's cowardly by ignoring the problems now. It's buck-passing on a grand scale that shows inept and weak governance. It's absolutely contemptible. The rout of mankind is well underway, unless...

    The solution:


    Monsanto comes to the rescue with GM

    GM now actually being mentioned and the president of the UN's International Fund for Agricultural Development , Lennart Båge, suggested that those opposed to GM crops should take another look at the productivity gains they can unleash and bring change as massive as the "green revolution" of the 1960s, when crop yields in India and other developing nations jumped because of better seeds, fertilisers and improved irrigation. The GM scenario is highly predictable, but only if the exploitation of the situation itself has been engineered. Climate change is a cyclical problem never before faced by such a large global population. Exploitation hides the engineering and engineering conceals the exploitation. To misdirect, Nobel Peace awards are used as a persuasion (of the masses) tactic. The concept of the conspiracy theory always meets with unwarranted and quite pathetic and non-thinking ridicule and derision as that has been the conditioned response. This shapes up as a classic "create the problem and provide the solution" scenario, the problem being the result of a cyclical, and therefore predictable, phenomenon.

    This prediction is no more implausible than the Big Bang 13.7bn years ago. That's only speculative theory and nothing more.

    Brown, Gordon: Snubs (2008) Olympic Games

    Gordon Brown has made it clear he will not attend the opening ceremony for the Olympic Games. This is typically insulting and nothing more than through convenience. It is easier to duck an issue rather than confront it. Brown's government do not want to upset the Chinese regime and so avoid any situation that may provoke a reaction. The closing ceremony perhaps , but this is purely for the political advantage of handover to the next Olympic Games to be held in London (2012). This illustrates the absolute disinterest in the ethic of the Games and that the Olympic spirit has been brought into absolute disrepute by dividing world opinion rather than acting as the glue that binds it together in a common cause. Nothing has been condemned by a shallow government, so shallow it can suffocate in the fumes created by its own poisonous hot air. A completely political decision and shows the spineless attitude of a government culture based on similar 'principles' to the American ethic of greed.

    • The population of an entire planet is being led down the road to Hell and transparency renders that fact paradoxically invisible. Those that crave power are the most incompetent and are completely blinded by their own idiocy.
    The so-called Lisbon Treaty. If Brown could have ducked it, he surely would have. Priorities demand anything would be more important than selling out the UQ (aka UK) Ltd citizens' right to determine their own future. Obviously, the citizens of the UQ (aka UK) Ltd are so unimportant in the grand scheme of things that there is no need to consult with them. This patronising and contemptible arrogance that calls itself government.

    • The people of any country are the least important 'commodity' of all, though their money represents everything. The aim is to separate the two. Stealing through stealth. The classic sting where the mark is unaware of the personal attack.
    This UQ (aka UK) Ltd government is prepared to squander £billions of public money, yet not celebrate the event that is responsible for it. This clearly reveals the lie. The legacy of the Blair government: the government that chases money and not principles of basic decency. That excuse for decency. Labels. The treatment of people doesn't matter at all. Any country on the planet from the UQ (aka UK) Ltd to Tibet to anywhere in Africa. Europe. India is a massive trading opportunity and control of a large part of the global population in the Indian subcontinent represents nearly control absolute. Let the Chinese do their part and the American Administration do theirs. The control of the planet's people is in the tacky, but iron, grip of those that would exercise absolute control.

    The Chinese walked into Tibet, but nothing was done. The entire affair has been brought out into the spotlight of global scrutiny and nothing is done. Appeasing comments are made that sports and politics should be kept separate. This would be ideal but reality makes them inseparable. Governments want that proverbial cake and to eat it. All of it. At least the best and most lucrative parts and these have nothing to do with sport. The Olympic Torch has faded into oblivion and at the same rate that abuse and the genocide of nations is ignored.

    There is nothing to take like the oil in Iraq. Tibet has a spiritual culture that offends the Chinese so it is crushed in typical form. This is condoned by accepting the behaviour and rewarding it by the government's acceptance of the Chinese attitude: crush, kill and destroy.

    The question is never faced about why is Iraq such a special case when world outrage condemns the Robert Mugabe Zibwabwe 'government'? Politically, criticism falls very short of the mark.

    No oil
    No prize

    China. The prize? Lucrative trade where attitudes are unimportant, even when conflict appears to undermine the ethos behind the failed climate change/global warming arguments. The end is paramount and the means to that end is completely ignored. Trade is the god of success and is paradoxically the Devil's tool. The filthy lucre.

    Planet Earth is certainly in declining health, but once that human parasite is removed the Earth will recover. It may take a few million years, but there is plenty of time. Meltdown. The parasite kills the parasite (itself) and then in its turn dies. The host lives on. The Earth can survive mankind. It may have even happened before. In the scale of time for Earth's (accepted) history, a million years is literally nothing, but the blink of an eye. A few hundred thousand years for man against a many hundreds of millions of years for Earth.

    No contest, but such is the incredible distortion created by the ego of Man. A very, very short existence on Earth to do maximum damage in as short a time possible. Mankind, but as a collection of individuals, imagines some virtuous right to kill and destroy (each other).

    Just to make money?

    Twisted and corrupt thinking and totally devoid of intelligence.