Your body their profits.

When the health gestapo started attacking smokers there was little resistance from the general public.Some protested that this would just be the thin edge of the wedge and that the health gestapo would use the same tactics on other legal activities.To my shame I was one of those that turned the other cheek given that I am a non smoker (not an anti smoker)and therefore naturally apathetic to the cause.
At the time of the public smoking ban people were not aware that the whole
non smoking industry was(and still is) bankrolled by companies that had developed nicotine patches and needed to sell as many as they could as quick as they could.To give them credit this method of marketing aided by politicians(in return for lucrative kick backs) and public money was a huge success.In fact it was so successful that it was realised that the "smokers patch" market was simply not sustainable .The model however was a good one with pharma companies raking in private profits from publicly funded campaigns so it was almost inevitable that this same model would be used again and again.
Next in the firing line came salt which resulted in millions of pounds of public money being shovelled into the (fake) charity sector to push the myth that adding salt to your diet is akin to spreading plutonium on your chips.Luckily (for them) pharma companies had a salt substitute made from god knows what to push resulting in more money for them and more nanny state for us.Kerching!! success number 2.
Next it was fat people (or obese as they are called now).The model that was so succesful with smoking and to a lesser extent with salt was modified slightly.Pharma got doctors on board in order to sell weightloss products and statins to patients in return for a drink or two from the drugs company.Fat people were given the choice of an early horrible death or taking a pill a day which would guarantee them eternal youth all funded of course by the taxpayer whilst the drugs companies sat back and watched the squillions roll in.The fact that statins had horrible side effects for many was ignored and the doctors keep prescribing them like sweets.
Not content with prescribing drugs pharma stepped up their game and diversified into offering invasive surgery to help the fat live longer, happier lives by having a restricted band strapped to their stomach all on the NHS naturally.The fact that deaths started occuring as a result of gastric band operations didnt stop the doctors and surgeons(more drinks) pushing this as an alternative to just eating less.
Sugar is next on the list for attack .Articles are appearing in the press highlighting the supposed danger of sugar and some idiot even suggested that it should be classified as a poison because it is SO dangerous to human health.Luckily drugs companies have developed synthetic sugar substitutes that will save us from the "white death" .The line being pushed and once again being swallowed hook line and sinker by the public is that a natural product(sugar) is bad for you but a synthetic product is good for you .It depresses me that people are not more aware of this ongoing scam but sadly in the area of health common sense goes out the window when a doctor aka drugs salesman tells you that you are going to die unless you take the latest snake oil remedy.
Who can forget the bird flu manufactured outbreak that killed very few people but resulted in a huge new market for anti viral drugs that were at best useless and at worst positively harmful.
Dementia is also coming up on the rails as the next profitable scam .Who wouldnt want your elderly confused relative to receive the latest(expensive) drugs from the lovely kind pharmaceutical companies after all they have our best interests at heart dont they? The twist to the tale on dementia is that there is suspicion that flu jabs(another subject completely) and statins could actually be causing the rise in dementia cases in the first place.Now I am not saying that this is true but if you were a drugs company wouldnt it be great and profitable if one of your products caused another illness that you could sell another product to help.Some people believe that the whole health and pharma industry is based on the very idea that if you can cause illness you can profit from its cure or treatment.Theres something to think about when you are collecting your prescription or queuing up for your annual flu jab.
After all the drugs companies are concerned about you and your health as far as if you die too soon thats one less consumer of their products.
Be well.

Climate Change Worm starts to turn.

Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about
By David Evans

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade — yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected.” These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.

One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?

The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

Financial Post
David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23

Taken from financial post article

Climate data since 1659

As I am now a climate scientist I have decided to start up the Crowborough Climate Research Unit and do a bit of research into climate change.

Trying to find modern untampered data is pretty much impossible.The eco fascists like to produce lovely graphs showing whatever they want them to show.The actual temperature figures are closely guarded by the eco fascists because they release nothing until they have been"adjusted " to such an extent that the figures end up meaningless.Variance from average temperature records are a favourite because depending where you decide the average is depends on what the graph show and there is no one on this earth who can tell what an average temperature should be for any given time because of the huge number of variables involved.

I have however managed to find genuine mean yearly temperatures for central England compiled by G.Manley in 1974 and published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 100, 389-405.

The mean temperatures I am interested in are for the years 1659-1974 (when the data was published)which is ideal because in 1974 the climate change scam had not even been thought up.

Using the figures of over 300 years the hottest mean temperatures are for the years 1733,1736,1779,1868 and 1949.

Figures after 1980 are useless and subject to god knows what fiddling to prove that man made C02 is responsible for supposed warming.The later figures look even more dodgy when you consider that the consensus is that no global warming has occured over the last decade yet according to these figures central England would seem to have been subject to its own period of warming when the rest of the globe has remained static in terms of temperature and even cooled a bit.

So in summary there is no pattern to prove anything other than to say the climate is such a complex system that no one with half a brain can predict anything other than the figures have been well and truly cooked over the last twenty years to prove something that is simply not happening.

In short the whole theory is shot to pieces and has no basis in fact at all. Read the figures yourself and make your own mind up but dont take the word of people whose speciality is in history/politics but are adept at class one bullshitting.

The link actually works now.