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, December 29, 2009

Good Riddance Day

In America they have a Good Riddance Day. It's a day to symbolically deny the past. The reason for remembering WW1 and WW2 is the concept of preventing WW3. The reasons for the alleged financial meltdown and recession and depression theories are forgotten in the 'look to the future and ignore the past' message. Hope. Future. These are both unknowns and so untestable. If the past mistakes are denied and forgotten then history will repeat itself. It's inevitable. The cynical learning is, of course, if it worked once then engineer the situation to repeat it. But this has already failed as the *ankers responsible for wrecking it once are so intent on doing it again that they cannot wait for the lapsed memory to become effective. In the process, continuing attempts are made to redistribute wealth to themselves by 'creating' debt. It's doomed to fail before it gets started. This is not wealth creation, but rather the reverse:

An attempt at 'hiding' the concept
of theft and in the process devaluing
everything that's been stolen...

...and before the financial system has 'recovered'. It's complete lunacy, but they are all *ankers.

G20 -Summit (2009)

Winners And Losers

However, by increasing the woes of everyone else by adding fuel to the fire as in the UQ (aka UK) Ltd, attention is misdirected away from the cause. Does anyone remember Fred "The Shred" Goodwin and RBSRoyal Bank of Scotland should not be confused with Bank of Scotland. An easy mistake to make and the cynical could imagine that this is precisely what is intended. Especially being Royal Bank of... and the perception could be of something better. The bank's reputation (if it ever had any) has been irreversibly damaged. Devaluation complete.

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Party Drugs

The desire to have a good time by using an adjunct is ill-advised. Using 'drugs' for 'partying' is lunacy. And even too much alcohol (a drug) is a poor idea. There is no such entity as a 'party' or 'good time' drug. To imagine there are such drugs is to imagine the drug was designed , developed, approved and marketed for use as an absurdly named recreational drug. Some of the (assumed) drugs used for these purposes are listed below. The assumption arises through not knowing what the 'pill' may actually be ('sold' by a drug dealer with integrity, perhaps - DA) and the effect is, in fact, just the side-effect. This means that the (over - DAdose is many times the effective dose, but effective for what? Any drug is potent and when misused for the wrong or absent indications is just plain stupid. It can mean death in 'tablet' form. Even a non-prescription (over-the-counter) analgesic can be lethal when mixed with either alcohol or other agents. Or both together. The term 'cocktail' has a new modern-day meaning: simply an undefined mixture of many diverse components.

Escape (short story)

Ecstasy sounds so much more exciting than:


or even MDMA, but they all describe the same active. What you may get though... and from a peddler of drugs? A lowlife. An unqualified (in any type of life skill, but maybe death skill) lowlife. Similar in principle to seeking the 'skills' of a backstreet abortionist.

All these drugs have a real therapeutic use and the genuine articles will all contain potent actives. As in the typical case of the stupid and gullible being led on to 'experiment' with these therapeutic drugs, the dealer who 'prescribes' these drugs will have no medical knowledge (in most cases) and is almost certainly totally disinterested in whether the buyer has a 'good time' or dies. The 'user' simply hands over money or gives some other service in return for... something unidentifiable. It may be apparently a pill (unmarked) that contains flour, baking powder (the cutting agent that dilutes any active so enhancing the dealers' profit) and a trace of some kind of active component. The dealers probably have no idea what they are selling unless they actually prepared it and where would they get the real drug? Probably from some disreputable source.

Buying medicines over the internet (FDA)

It's the similar scenario to buying any 'unlabelled product' from an unknown street seller. The history and the integrity of the 'product' is completely unknowable and the word of the dishonest and unidentified dealer is assumed (incredibly!) to be honest. The best bit (for the dealer) is that if you get swindled (and you realise it later) then you have no hope of any 'money back guarantee'. Unless you become your own policeman and enforce redress.

Imagine someone in the street offering a sealed and unmarked envelope for sale indicating that it contains, say £100. The cost to buy the envelope is £50. Would you hand over this money with the belief that you will double your money? If you 'buy' the envelope, the probability is that you would find it contains just blank pieces of paper (to fool you). It could actually contain real money, though it would definitely be less than you paid for it. Is this stupid?

The belief is there because
you want it to be true 

This is the gullibility and that word has been removed from the dictionary. The same happens with 'drugs' and is how the system functions: blind and unthinking belief. All drugs are dangerous and you can have absolutely no idea about what you will actually get for your money. It'll probably be something that panders to this belief that you received something of value so you come back for more (if you remain alive). It could even be (unverifiable) any one on the list (see above) though you will have absolutely no idea (or probably care) which one, whatever you may be told in order to relieve you of your money. The paradox here is that it can be construed as a good business attitude in a filthy business. Or an oxymoron: good villains, honest politicians. It all depends on your viewpoint.

Bizarre. Mad. Crazy. Stupid. 


  • Drinking a simple glass of water provided by a complete stranger is fraught with potentially very great dangers since the water may contain an invisible product dissolved in the liquid. This is the route for getting the unwary to imbibe other agents such as rohypnol or GHB. Mixed as a solution in an alcoholic drink ensures the failure to detect any 'additive'. The trust imparted by the punters is truly frightening.
  • Does this suggest paranoia or basic caution? When drinks are brought to your table by an unknown waiter, are you examining the waiter and are you sure it is the waiter? Are you getting the unadulterated product that you are expecting?

Responsibility: State And Private Employees

The human race is a parasite and it feeds off the Earth, but within the 'Them and Us' society of the parasite collective is a subset where there is a part of the 'Us' that feeds off 'Us'. This is illustrated by the government in the UQ (aka UK) Ltd. Gradually and insidiously those working directly for the government (state employees), yet paid for by the taxpayer (both state + private), are selectively rewarded by an ever-increasing benefit: the pension afforded to this group of state employees at the expense of the private industry employee. This parasitic group is that subset of the human parasite.

What this does is subverts allegiance towards the employer (government) that is allegedly 'elected' to serve the people as a whole. The government, however, considers the people the servants of a parasitic government. The government then becomes the super-subset of a subset of the set. A hierarchical order of parasite within the parasite. Dependence of the state employee subset parasite through a technical bribe assures the continued 'power' of the super-subset (government parasite) and ensures that the private-sector employee group is the very lowest of the entire parasite set, working to feed the super-subset that feeds the subset. Dependence leads to allegiance. This ensures the goal: control.

Dependence of another subset within the parasite has already been effected by acting as the hand that feeds: the benefit provider.

The responsibility of the private employee extends to being forced to look after the state employee. The title super-subset is earned by the state employee subset itself being totally unaware that it is controlled through the cynical reward concept. As a parasite, the super-subset (government) has no interest in either the state employee subset or private employee set other than the means to:

Power and Control 

It does have the important property of giving legalised authority (access) to the taxpayer purse. Perversely, with the example of MP expenses revelations, and the level of alleged abuses, any government is entrusted to such finance. There are no verifiable controls to monitor how money is 'spent' or disbursed or where any of it goes. It's all paradoxically left to trust.

Oddly, some of the people still believe that self-serving
government actually cares about the
PEOPLE that service government

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Amortisation: The Monster

The principle of amortisation explains the connection with usury as a blatant extra charge in excess of an agreed amount on (non-defaulting) payment. A method of raising the repayable charge that already includes interest.

Growth: The Cynical Illusion

The rise of the financial yoke has been facilitated by the computer. Nowadays, interest is calculated monthly or possibly even daily or hourly, adding an increased amount of interest by the process of amortisation. Without computers this would be totally impractical, but as with many inventions, they can be turned to how they can inflict control (maximisation of growth) rather than any real benefit. So it is with computers: they can be a benefit and a curse simultaneously. The exploitation of a concept by interest being added to interest. It's effectively a hidden charge. This can be construed as technical theft since the original loan is contracted on the understanding that it will attract interest. The interest-on-interest is not necessarily declared. Caveat emptor. This is the action that causes inflation. Growth. Without growth inflation would be zero. To then charge interest on the interest (amortise) defines that the interest levy is itself a loan. This clearly is not the case. The interest is the paid levy on a loan and is not a loan itself although that is how the lender (surreptitiously) interprets the amortised addition to the original loan.

How it works: as an example, consider a borrower who has negotiated a £10,000 loan and contracted to pay interest at 3%. In the first year the interest attracted would be £300, so the new payable amount becomes £10,300. This example is one of those where no capital repayment is required (interest only) as in a mortgage.

  • The student loan is different as it has rolling closure date that just moves and could effectively go on forever, just accruing (amortised) interest. Currently, the student loan interest rate has been set at 0% (1st September 2009 - 31st August 2010). This is reviewed every year for the entire academic year. Interest is accrued only above a threshold (£1250). So, a minimum repayment will reduce the loan liability the least and when interest is charged it will attract the maximum yield. Great care has to be exercised here as the rate changes annually. Historically, the rates vary considerably even if this is now set to 0% (2009 - 2010).
If the loan attracts interest monthly the total payable in that same year becomes a greater amount: 3% annually equates to = 0.25% per month. In the first month the new payable amount = £10,000 + £25 - an additional £25. The second month would then be £10,025 + £25.0625. This amount then equates to £10,050.0625 and so on.

1.    £10,000.0000 + £25.0000    = £10,025.0000
2.    £10,025.0000 + £25.0625    = £10,050.0625
3.    £10,050.0625 + £25.0650    = £10,075.1275
4.    £10,075.1275 + £25.0675    = £10,100.1950
5.    £10,100.1950 + £25.0700    = £10,125.2650
6.    £10,125.2650 + £25.0725    = £10,150.3375
7.    £10,150.3375 + £25.0750    = £10,175.4125
8.    £10,175.4125 + £25.0775    = £10,200.4900
9.    £10,200.4900 + £25.0800    = £10,225.5700
10.    £10,225.5700 + £25.0825    = £10,250.6525
11.    £10,250.6525 + £25.0850    = £10,275.7375
12.    £10,275.7375 + £25.0875    = £10,300.8250

So, in the first year the new amount has reached £10,300.8250 and not £10,300. This additional £0.8250 has grown and continues to grow for all the following years any of the original capital is not paid. This may appear to be an insignificant amount, but collectively across all the active loans a lender may have, it translates to a huge amount of inflationary income (presumably attracting corporation tax). Any increase in income by default is taxed. Increasing revenue without doing anything. But no new money, just redirection (redistribution) of others' finances. Any payment in excess of £25 would see the overall owed amount (slowly) reducing. If a repayment of, say £100 were to be paid every month, the situation would be quite different. The original loan and the monthly interest charge less the repayment results in (£10,000 + £25.0000) - £100 = £9925. It is not uncommon to add the first interest charge onto the capital before the repayment is deducted. If the repayment is credited before interest is levied, a lesser amount would be the result:

£10,000 – £100 = £9900 + £24.75 = £9924.75

In the first month, already the lender has charged an extra £0.25 (£9925 - £9924.75) for doing nothing more than charging on the original loan before there is an opportunity to reduce the capital by repaying a monthly installment. Finance has been extended for that month before the payment becomes due with interest. It would be 'interesting' to find out if payment at the beginning of a month would avoid the £0.25 since the full amount had not been borrowed for the entire month. Clearly, after the first month £9925 is the lesser amount compared to £10,025. The most prudent action is always to repay as much as possible to offset the mounting interest. This is one place where lenders ‘make’ their money. Another associated ‘money-making’ area is when banks pay interest on savings, but only annually. The banks do not entertain the concept of amortisation when they have to pay out interest (once annually) rather than collecting interest (1/12th monthly, but 12 times annually).

Mortgages operate in the same way and illustrates how an interest only repayment scheme may effectively reduce the monthly payment, but also how the capital by not being repaid results in the overall payable amount being much greater than a repayment mortgage. The endowment schemes played this game, but the end-of-term lump sum was supposed to pay off the original capital.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Climate Change: Copenhagen, December 2009

It could be construed as cynical, but this bash did take place in Copenhagen and in the winter. Cairo in the summer would, perhaps, have been more appropriate as this could focus minds on the entire issue. Global warming and climate change in Cairo in the summer (34°C, June 2009) and not Copenhagen in the winter (-4°C, December 2009).

  • In the colder seasons when more carbon dioxide-generating fossil fuels are consumed, it is also the period when less carbon dioxide is removed: plants go dormant (photosynthesis). The winter months form the period of greatest seasonal CO2 production since the two effects conspire to make this happen. Any climate change/global warming issues will also be exaggerated in the winter. This does, however, lead towards a specious argument since gradually any localised atmosphere will drift all over the planet. CO2-quota trading. Nevertheless it is highly dependent on when and where CO2 measurements are made. It's very vulnerable to massaging and the corruption of otherwise good quality data.
The climate change ‘jolly’ (a gathering with the purpose of having fun at others' expense) in Copenhagen resulted in a predictable waste of time with all those national leaders unable to seemingly organise a drink's party in an appropriate venue. The rhetoric essentially descended into farce and how much more they can screw out of the planet in order to save it. Ludicrously, these ‘jolly-attendees’ wasted several days just getting the meeting started and an agenda ‘organised’ with which to move ever backwards. Result: mostly nothing other than preventing it all from rolling back too far (and that’s being very generous). These 'leaders' behave as a bunch of complete amateurs. It appears that it never occurred to the chairperson that an agenda should be agreed before the meeting opened. Perhaps it was, but the squabbles just started as there was nobody apparently in control. Pure farce. Wonderful stuff to present to the world about how those in charge... are leading the charge against this urgent problem. These are the antics of important people doing important things while attending a real all expenses paid (two-week-long) jolly. Clearly, not very seriously. Expensive hotels, good wine and food and first class entertainment: watching each other. This is a reminder of what (probably) happens in the EU parliament proceedings. Except that this is relatively continuous, not just two weeks, but the expenditure is for the entire year. The bash in Copenhagen was a complete failure that ended with nothing and this with less than 200 delegates. The EU parliament has 736 MEPs. Those present would be much less in number, but without a daily roll call this could never be accurately ascertained. Another larger jolly in the making. DA

Any legally binding agreement was always going to be a fiction. Or fantasy based on science: science fantasy. Legally enforceable agreement between nations? And how could that be managed? By some kind of World Court of Justice? Trade embargoes happen, but restrictions on trade and the tension that rises out of that is not likely to smooth matters in this very urgent scenario. Actually a non-starter of an idea. More posturing.

Why has this become so very urgent? The 'science' being exploited suggests the world will melt down ('liquid' global finances have already become very mercurial). That's pure scaremongering. This is not denial or skepticism, but purely challenging the hype. Doubt concerning the accuracy of the statements of pseudo-fact. Like all good scare stories this is (very) loosely connected to fact, but distorted to portray the lie. A growing population generates more carbon dioxide while destruction of trees absolutely prevents regeneration of life-giving oxygen. The cosmetic action of 'plant a tree' may sound a proper solution, but the tree will take many years to properly replace the tree destroyed. In this 'urgent' business this is clearly shown to be what is it. A sham. A con. The 'feel good' factor.

Urgency is defined as being around... 2050. Urgency is +40 years away into the future. For a comparative trip into the past this approximates to around 1970.


The cavalry was seen to arrive with US President Obama in typical PR form. Ever since and before the inauguration, Obama has been portrayed as a messiah. If he speaks, the world must listen. This is the danger. What he says is not necessarily what he believes. Scriptwriters write scripts and these are directed by the unknown conductors. The technical head of state is not necessarily in charge. Like the UQ (aka UK) Ltd, the Queen has limited power and effectively bows to the will of parliament. Those unseen directors that control global affairs. Obama is not a messiah anymore than any other 'leader'. The very fact that the message promotes the unproven should be enough to sound the alarm bells. But it is the message to be broadcast to the world. The US arrives to save the World. Again. Bad boy China faces up to good guy US. The US being the world leader as a polluter telling China how to behave. As a nuclear power telling Iran how to behave. Placing the beast in irons will create anger, hostility and gross unrest. This promotes potential war and the consequential sale of weapons of war. The sustainable market. Perfect.

Posturing cannot disguise the fact that all these ‘leaders’ at the Climate Change bash in Copenhagen have done (unsurprisingly) nothing. Nothing could happen without letting the cat out of the bag that the whole business is a sham crafted to scare the World. Not save the planet. And the projected cost? So far it seems anything between $30-100bn annually with no end date other than when the World has been saved by the US and the Sun has been brought to task by the collective egos and starts to behave itself and cool down a bit. Urgency continued to be emphasised, but this is obviously an attempt to create pressure, though this is probably just for public consumption. This suggests these leaders are actually doing something useful. Urgency seems to point towards a time way off into the future: 2020 or 2030 or 2040 or the target of 2050. No good reason for 2050, but it sounds good: half way through the current century. This suggests that even amidst all the 'urgency' the 'leaders' will save the Earth. The planet will survive. But this is over 40 years away and in a very distant future. Not only do the 'leaders' have the power to save the planet, they also have servicable crystal balls. Urgent action is required by these sincere individuals. Now. To forsee 40 years into the future. It's a very confused message that is basically complete nonsense. Irrational. Nothing new there.

Ice Ages - These are relatively regular occurrences every 20,000 years or so. One 'recently' ended and another will soon be on its way. In the estimated 4.5bn years of Earth history, this amounts to 225,000 ice ages. This defines some sort of perspective (short story).

Certainly, there are probably a lot of sincere attendees though they are from the developing countries. The developed countries are the rich ones and want to keep everyone else in poverty. Shackle everyone else so that all potential competition disappears. THEM and US. The rich nations playing fair.

  • There are still those that could not even imagine engaging in dialogue with black Africa. And any trading could only be effected one way as long as America gets rich. And richer and... DA

The entire concept of aircraft use seems to have been carefully avoided, but continues to escalate as though planes don't pollute. Curious. It appears that once off the ground planes stop causing the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Certainly the local atmosphere. Cars don't fly, but continue to be a major localised pollutant. The delegates and their entourage travelling to and around Copenhagen in planes and cars must have produced a great deal of CO2. Heating the venue in the winter created a great deal of CO2. So what? They are trying to save the planet. There were no calls for a reduction in the manufacture of cars. Manufacturing cars that are a known polluting plague and that many people no longer find affordable. Globally car manufacturers are finding it tough in the recession. The answer? Pump in $billions to breathe contaminated air into the dying dinosaur that pollutes the atmosphere. The dinosaur that causes the alleged climate change, but contributes grotesque amounts of taxes from an otherwise waste and useless product: petrol. The consumer who is supposed to buy this product gets no help, even though the producer gets bailed out with taxpayers' virtual money. The same taxpayer who is supposed to buy the product with no financial assistance. The cynical scrappage system helps the manufacturer and car dealer and the government (VAT and Car Sales Tax), but provides the buyer with an instantly devalued product as a result of depreciation that is immediate. The £2000 in the UQ (aka UK) Ltd is negated immediately.

Restricting air traffic would damage trade between countries, but relatively little within countries. On an international footing, like the Copenhagen bash, local (intrinsic) business wouldn't count. Of course, pollution from international aircraft travel spreads the pollution between nations. This is probably covered by CO2-quota trading.

Carbon Quota

  • The arguments against smoking are similar: governments appear to be 'caring' by encouraging smokers to... stop smoking. Government doesn't take the issue too far, however, since this would harm the intake of taxation if too many actually stopped buying the product. The product is a perfect one:
Pay tax throughout a lifetime
then die before you get ill

  • Government 'caring' costs are instantly reduced to zero.
Incidentally, it is fascinating that the terrorist card has NOT been played. With nearly 200 world ‘leaders’ present, the target must be seen as the golden prize in that these illustrious people are all together under one roof. Taking this building out would decimate politics around the World. And probably catalyse the start of WWIII. This is so suggestive that the centre of operations rests with the governments and as they are all together there is no problem. They wouldn't harm each other, would they? The Mugabe ambush of Prince Charles in Rome at the Pope's funeral is another example: security should have been a real issue, but silence prevailed as it clearly was of no concern.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Global Warming And Climate Change Rhetoric

      The attempted route to the demanded conclusion is very predictable.

      The debate continues to polarise. Each defends their own belief, but it appears that within the alternative view there is very great contention by being closed down and so denying the opportunity to broadcast the other side of the debate. One arm waving. The apparent conclusion is then that the entire world shares the opinions of people like Gore since the other side is never heard and so does not even exist. Gore and his supporters may be correct or not in their assertions, but to attempt gagging opponents shows that the argument is lost. Any possible support is also lost.

      Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and supports the concepts of alleged global warming and alleged climate change, but is not the alleged cause of it. The political position, as always with politics, is grotesquely patronising by attempting to browbeat opponents. The next phase will presumably be the conspiracy theory ploy. If the case cannot be made through debate and logic then the ridicule approach will be brought into play. This would be the classical approach. After that would come the necessary protests as this would remain the only way for opponents to air their counter opinions publically and that, of course, alienates discussion from closed minds. This would be desirable as it appears to strengthen the righteous. The definition of protesting opponents suggests a violent positional stance. Orchestrated (by governments) riots  visibly repelled by the state troopers (police) would be provided to engender even greater misguided public support. In the meantime, nothing happens and attention is systematically diverted away from the original cause. Grotesque amounts of money are condemned to the... wherever... and the whole global warming issue will be encouraged to fade. Global cooling will start and nobody will notice except those who protested aloud. And louder and loudest. The likes of Gore and Branson may even finally be silenced.

      Gore may even be sincere, but attempting to silence critics, and there are many of those, suggests that the debate has been lost as he realises he is wrong. Gore cannot now turn back as he has committed his hand. But then the campaign against global cooling will begin. This is probably already being rehearsed ready for a showing. Imagine: Gore and all the proponents for these issues leading the charge...

      Similar to the financial system scam. The failed system subverted to a public support that denies the reality. This all resembles the witch hunts (in mediaeval days) or those who refused to follow the doctrines of the church that the Earth was the centre of the universe. The ducking stool scenario: telling the truth results in drowning and survival demonstrates guilt. Life is then terminated by fire as being a witch is 'proven' as evidenced by the fact that drowning did not happen.

      The alternative view, which I fully endorse, is that the 'accepted' case remains unproven. This is a consequence of the logical science viewpoint that does NOT involve politics. Just truth and cold and objective logic. Not hot, highly emotive and subjective rhetoric. I have no axe to grind, but I do expect grown up debate of good quality. The pit into which all this is descending does not entertain honesty, but simply winning a polarised argument. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter. The ego just needs to 'win' all the money.

      Personally, I am content to accept defeat if I (and all the other opponents) am shown to be wrong. If I am right, then silence will be the order of the day as I am not naïve and expect any parading of shame from those so vociferously favouring the argument of carbon dioxide and the exclusive human causation.

      Proof That Carbon Dioxide Is A Greenhouse Gas

      There was recently a cynical demonstration (Newsnight 16.12.09) of the heat retention capability of carbon dioxide. As a principle it possibly worked, but was extremely distorted as a practice. The attempt to subvert opinion should have failed, but probably didn't. The production of the carbon dioxide was in copious and hugely unrealistic volumes and in a very small enclosed container. The source of light was (so it appeared) a spot lamp and the irradiation would have been more like the sunlight intensity on Venus.

      • Venus is the planet adjacent to Earth and with its atmosphere of almost pure (96.5%) carbon dioxide is the hottest planet in the solar system. A distorted interpretation of this could conclude that the CO2 causes a major problem that is being blamed for global warming/climate change on Earth. However, this planet is 108,200,000km from the Sun whereas the Earth is 149,600,000km distant (ie much further away), but the most significant fact is that the Venusian atmosphere is mainly (96.5% = 965,000 parts per million) CO2, but Earth has a trace of around 0.04% (400ppm). Comparisons do not apply, but like statistics could be made to appear very serious.
      There is no contention about the heat retention properties of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide or methane (20 times more potent than CO2). This is the nature of a greenhouse gas. As a simulation of the real world it was a very poor example and any justification that the permitted time required a rapid and graphic illustration would be specious in the extreme. The demonstration conveyed the point that heat is retained to a greater extent in a CO2 enriched environment than ordinary air. The demonstration was about 4degC in 10 minutes. There can be no doubt that this would happen. It did happen.

      This is not proof of global warming, but only a simple


      that carbon dioxide does behave as a...

        What needs to be asked is why there should
        be such a frenzy to convince the public of
        global warming and climate change, by


        Wednesday, December 16, 2009

        Ice, Sea Volume And Finance

        Images continue the ludicrous connection between an iceberg cliff collapsing and global sea volumes rising by 10s of metres. A very simple comparison demonstrates the scare-mongering. Global water volume is approximately 1.37bn cubic km. A structure the size of one of the pyramids at Giza (the square-based dimension is roughly 225m x 225m by 150m high) gives a volume of about 7,600,000 cubic metres and should an iceberg of similar size melt, little if any change in global sea volume would be apparent. This ignores the reduced volume of water to that of ice which contains trapped air.

        Global sea volume = 1,370,000,000 cubic km
        Pyramid volume    = 0.0076 cubic km

        Any volume change to global sea
        levels is absolutely negligible.
        Literally a ‘drop in the ocean’

        The academic circle supporting the terrible consequences have categorically (and publically: Newsnight 16.12.09) stated that sea levels will rise by 100m. This can be easily be demonstrated to be a disgraceful untruth, clearly designed to scare and so attempt to convince of their failing argument. The volume of the water needed to fill a volume that covers the Earth to a depth of 100m would need to come from an ice area of over 19,000 km square. The Earth diameter is 12,742km across so half the equatorial circumference equates to 20,015km, approximately the available space over one-half of the Earth's surface. This is just another one of those strange coincidences: 100m and 20,015km.

        19000km * 19000km = 361,000,000 sq km

        This is just the surface area required and is the area of all the existing seas over the Earth: 4 * 3.142 * 6371 * 6371 = 510,064,472 sq km surface area. The ice mass coverage is 71% if this came from frozen sea. The land area would be less than one-half of this area (29%) and if the ice melted from the land it would be even more than impossible. A perverse miracle? The land or sea would need to provide a height of 100m of ice to deepen the seas by a similar amount. 

        With a depth of 100m (0.1km) and volume = 361,000,000 * 0.1 = 36,100,000 cubic km a block of ice would be a cube (#) of about 330km square by 330km in height. Or a 1km high block of ice with a footprint of size 6000km square. So: 6000*6000*1 = 36,000,000 sq km by 1km high.

        Another way of estimating the size of a mass of ice is by considering the volume increase of the global sea volume from 1.37bn cubic km resulting from an increased average depth of 100m from 3790m to 3890m. The volume can be roughly calculated: (3890/3790) * 1.37bn = 1.4bn cubic km. The additional water volume would be (1.4-1.37)bn cubic km and equates to 30,000,000 cubic km. This reduces to a cube of sides 311km * 311km * 311km, which is consistent with the values already estimated (see above #).

        The 'elephant in the room' here is that any climate change would require an ice mass of this size. To originate from a warming sea is a complete paradox and the logical conclusion is that any ice must come from the land: the smaller (29%) surface area of the Earth. This is the more illogical source and still presents a paradox.

        The illusion of virtual money can entertain writing off colossal debt without any effect. Something that doesn’t exist cannot make a difference if it disappears. A paradox. A non-argument. The entire fabrication of the concept falls apart when examined in the most cursory manner. The illusion is that $£trillions have been ‘spent’ propping up an illusory financial system. It’s fascinating that countries, such as the UQ (aka UK) Ltd, can provide these $£trillions for this, but cannot find a few £millions to fund the unnecessary and engineered war with Iraq and continued into Afghanistan. It's simply that such spending involves 'real' money where the financial system involves just non-existent vapour. There is no end to 'another few (hundred) billions' , though the 'virtual' debt continues, of course, to increase. The more that is borrowed (no limit as it's all vapour) the more virtual interest that is converted into 'real' debt. It's technically a non-biological and highly cynical hybrid of money laundering and 'wealth creation'.

        The highest priority should not be subordinated and a country at war is

        the priority

        This then raises the whole issue of terrorism. Is it a real issue or another construct of governments to justify wars?

        Create the problem and
        provide the solution

        This has nothing to do with spending cuts and paying obscene amounts for things that do no matter. The financial system is illusory, but the war certainly is not. The wickedness is exemplified by the numbers of sacrificed soldiers being returned. The soldiers do a real and dangerous job inside the disgusting financial system that is nothing more than a system to control the people. The *ankers are just tools, and not particularly sharp ones. A means to an end, which requires the assistance of these *ankers. This may be collusion as paying the bonuses assists the blindness necessary to carry out the financial sting. It's been made very clear that these unwitting *ankers are not particularly bright, just greedy and the way to ensure collusion is through the obscene bonus 'system'. Bribe is possibly more accurate. Otherwise they are a total irrelevancy. Another set of pawns in the grotesque game of human chess. This nails the lie of a financial crisis. The monetary system failed long ago, but the lie is maintained. Once again. The system never worked, but it controls nations: billions of pawns on a grossly over-populated planet-sized chess board.

        Another marauding chessman is the climate change piece.

        There is a nasty connectivity here: globally providing $£trillions to prop up a mythical financial system of virtual money and the countless $£billions to combat the ‘global warming’ myth. Incidentally, banks are paying out £bns in bonuses to the “much needed” *ankers who caused the problem. These bonuses being paid with taxpayers’ virtual money to fund and reward absolute failure. The only truly valuable commodities are gold and diamonds that do not deteriorate or decompose and drinking water. Around as little as 2% of water on Earth is drinkable, the rest contaminated by salt and therefore unusable to the human parasite population. The drinking water as the most important resource on Earth is ironically, but with incredible stupidity, being destroyed in making the cement and concrete that houses the human parasite. As a double irony, water is produced in the combustion of fossil fuels that is blamed for all the global woes of climate change and the ‘global warming’ myth.

        Human stupidity has no limits

        In Copenhagen they dither and argue about trivia and the conclusion has always been obvious before the farce even started: there will be no resolution since this would otherwise reveal the entire and very expensive, climate change hoax that is potentially far in excess of the Apollo 'project'. The people still perversely want to believe and are absolutely blind to the conditioning. The money already 'spent' has just been fiddled away. Thrown away. But 'money', virtual or any other, always goes somewhere.

        So where is that?
        Who has it?

        While Rome burns...