A few days ago, a hacker apparently extracted a massive amount of data from the University of East Anglia's computers. That's where a lot of the global warming scientists work. I didn't say anything until I could decide whether to believe it, but it looks genuine. There is some hint that it was leaked, rather than hacked.
Some have taken the trouble to delve into this data and have found considerable evidence that the whole 'global warming' issue has been nothing but a scam. This is possibly the biggest scandal to hit science since Piltdown Man. Newspapers have ignored this. Bloggers have not (caution, some are not quite as temperate as me).
Now there are all sorts of vague threats of 'doom' appearing in the papers here and since it's currently summer in the Southern Hemisphere, look out for reports of melting Antarctic ice. Like last year. And the year before. Have you ever noticed how the ice-doom is in the Arctic when it's summer here and in the Antarctic when it's summer there?
The game is up for the warming scam but I doubt they'll let it go so easily. Too much money and too many careers built on it. Oh, and plenty of tax income dependent on it too.
Should you be thinking that I must have fallen for some hoax or other, that no government could be so crass and idiotic as to lie - not just mislead, actually lie - to its own people and to treat human life with contempt in the pursuit of their own aggrandisement, take a look at this. The global warming money machine game is no problem to people who could do that.
Next May, we will have an election in the UK and it is likely that the Tory party will replace the Labour party. It is unlikely anything else will change. For a couple of months, the fury in the country will subside but it won't stay away for long.
Next summer, the UK might not be a good choice for a holiday.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Seeing is not believing.
Our primary British idiot, the singer Sting, claims to have seen a ghost in his own bedroom. A ghost that manifested clearly enough to describe. A ghost seen by himself and by his wife.
Then he says:
"Intellectually, no I don't believe in them (ghosts), but I've experienced them on an emotional level.''
Right. So he sees a ghost with his own eyes, is certain he's seen a ghost, and doesn't believe 'intellectually'. His visual experience is only 'emotional'.
Just what will it take for these people? Even when they experience a ghost for themselves they won't believe it.
One day they'll die. Then they're going to get a very big surprise.
Then he says:
"Intellectually, no I don't believe in them (ghosts), but I've experienced them on an emotional level.''
Right. So he sees a ghost with his own eyes, is certain he's seen a ghost, and doesn't believe 'intellectually'. His visual experience is only 'emotional'.
Just what will it take for these people? Even when they experience a ghost for themselves they won't believe it.
One day they'll die. Then they're going to get a very big surprise.
Apocalypse later.
A friend (yes, I have some. Not many, but some) gave me a DVD he'd bought in the bargain bins. His comments were along the lines of 'If you see this one on display, always pick it up. There might be something worth watching underneath'.
The film was 2012: Doomsday. One of many such doom-laden films, all very popular nowadays. This one is laced with Christian messages, which is no problem for me as long as it's a good story well told. I don't get upset at religious messages. I just ignore them.
What I could not ignore was the desperate stupidity of the film. It opens with a large gold cross in an ancient Mayan temple which 'proves that Christians arived in South America long before Columbus'. Which is utter tosh. If that were the case, and they were making two-foot crosses out of gold, Columbus would have arrived at a Christian civilisation.
They then take the cross to Chichen Itza, the stepped pyramid in Mexico. They carry this damn thing which is solid gold and must weigh around fifty pounds as if it's just gold-painted wood. They do this because the Earth is slowing down and it's December 12, 2012, the end of the Mayan calendar's 'long count'. Which has, incidentally, ended twelve times before and just gone back to the start again each time. Calendars do that. Ours ends every year on December 31st and funnily enough, starts again with January 1st the very next day.
Several groups are converging on this pyramid. It's snowing on some characters but not on other characters in the same places. The snow is apparently personal. Some get called spontaneously to Heaven in the Rapture which is what's meant to happen when the world ends but...
(Spoiler coming. If you haven't seen the film but would like to endure it, miss out the text in blue)
... The world doesn't end. The sun goes down, a woman gives birth, the sun comes back up again at once. That's it. That. Is. It. No seven-headed monster, no horsemen of the apocalypse, no Whore of Babylon, no mark of the beast, nothing. Sunset, birth, sunrise, and that's the end. The Earth continues as normal and all those killed in the Rapture must be pretty pissed about it.
And yet people believe this. They really think the world will end when the Mayan calendar runs out. They actually believe that a Christian God pays attention to Quetzalcoatl, the flying serpent of the South American religions.
People are really wondering when they should kill their pets and children to spare them the horrors of the End. Seriously. It's a film! It's not real.
The Mayan calendar is a calendar. It gets to the end and it starts again. It has nothing at all to do with the Christian view of apocalypse. Only one thing will really happen after December 12th 2012.
December 13th 2012.
Nothing else will change.
The film was 2012: Doomsday. One of many such doom-laden films, all very popular nowadays. This one is laced with Christian messages, which is no problem for me as long as it's a good story well told. I don't get upset at religious messages. I just ignore them.
What I could not ignore was the desperate stupidity of the film. It opens with a large gold cross in an ancient Mayan temple which 'proves that Christians arived in South America long before Columbus'. Which is utter tosh. If that were the case, and they were making two-foot crosses out of gold, Columbus would have arrived at a Christian civilisation.
They then take the cross to Chichen Itza, the stepped pyramid in Mexico. They carry this damn thing which is solid gold and must weigh around fifty pounds as if it's just gold-painted wood. They do this because the Earth is slowing down and it's December 12, 2012, the end of the Mayan calendar's 'long count'. Which has, incidentally, ended twelve times before and just gone back to the start again each time. Calendars do that. Ours ends every year on December 31st and funnily enough, starts again with January 1st the very next day.
Several groups are converging on this pyramid. It's snowing on some characters but not on other characters in the same places. The snow is apparently personal. Some get called spontaneously to Heaven in the Rapture which is what's meant to happen when the world ends but...
(Spoiler coming. If you haven't seen the film but would like to endure it, miss out the text in blue)
... The world doesn't end. The sun goes down, a woman gives birth, the sun comes back up again at once. That's it. That. Is. It. No seven-headed monster, no horsemen of the apocalypse, no Whore of Babylon, no mark of the beast, nothing. Sunset, birth, sunrise, and that's the end. The Earth continues as normal and all those killed in the Rapture must be pretty pissed about it.
And yet people believe this. They really think the world will end when the Mayan calendar runs out. They actually believe that a Christian God pays attention to Quetzalcoatl, the flying serpent of the South American religions.
People are really wondering when they should kill their pets and children to spare them the horrors of the End. Seriously. It's a film! It's not real.
The Mayan calendar is a calendar. It gets to the end and it starts again. It has nothing at all to do with the Christian view of apocalypse. Only one thing will really happen after December 12th 2012.
December 13th 2012.
Nothing else will change.
Monday, November 16, 2009
The real danger of global warming.
There is a great danger associated with global warming and it's this -
It's not happening. Instead, the Earth is now cooling. Oh, it was warming up to around ten years ago but now it's cooling again and with sunspot activity extraordinarily low, it can cool quite fast. The Global Warmers who insist we are causing warming by producing CO2 emissions that barely touch on those from volcanoes or marshlands are all demanding that we throw away all our heat sources because otherwise, global temperature might rise by a few degrees over a period of centuries.
You know how fast global cooling can happen? Go on, have a guess. If an ice age started today, how long before Scotland is under ice? Centuries? Decades? Years?
Months.
Global cooling cannot be blamed on the greenhouse effect nor can it be blamed on emissions. That's why you don't hear those words. Instead, it's 'climate change' and we are to take the blame and pay the taxes because somehow, moving little bits of paper around will cause the Earth to stop its natural cycles of warm and cold and settle into a steady temperature forever. Something it has never done and will never do. The climate changes. Sometimes it gets warmer and sometimes it gets cooler. We've been through a warming patch and now we're in a cooling patch. It might or might not tip into ice age, it could go back to warming again but that does not mean that any of it has anything to do with what we build or burn.
It also does not mean that we can stop it. No matter how much tax we pay to people who run half a dozen huge houses each and who fly the world in jets to tell us about 'carbon footprints' and the evils of patio heaters. Those who want us to discard all power sources and live in mud huts are the real danger.
Because if that ice age does come, it's not going to be a matter of 'in a few decades'. It'll be 'this time next year, you'll live in an igloo'.
Take a look at this article on the polar bear.
"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.
The words of a polar bear biologist with 20 years' experience. Or the word of Al Gore, a politician with a huge house and a vast vested interest in the whole 'climate change' industry. You choose.
The global warming argument?
"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."
Bear numbers are increasing so they're in danger from global warming and anyone who denies it is a bear-hunter. He ignores the detail that conservation efforts would be totally ineffective if the globe was warming because the bears hunt on ice and if there's a lot less ice, where are these increased bear numbers living?
This technique is well known in the UK, where anyone who so much as mentions immigration is a racist, anyone who objects to Sharia law is an islamophobe, anyone who objects to the State-driven ID cards or criminal records checks or collection of DNA for the database must be a criminal in hiding, and so on. They pick the most evil thing they can think of and link objectors to that in an effort to silence them. For 'climate change denier', go back to the days of the Inquisition and read 'heretic'. The techniques of such people never vary. I have a friend who has studied them and who refers to them as 'The Righteous'. I used to think of him as a crazed conspiracy theorist but now I'm starting to wonder. The techniques he describes are still in use.
Every summer we hear about arctic ice melting, and every (northern) winter we hear about antarctic ice melting, when it's summer down there. It grows back in winter but that's never mentioned. Just think about that for a while.
A favourite technique used by these people is 'for the children'. Every adult in the UK is a suspected paedophile and must be checked and catalogued 'for the children'. Smokers are banned from everywhere 'for the children'. Anyone buying alcohol in a supermarket might find they are refused if they happen to have a child with them - for the children. Lately, the State wants access to anyone's home at any time they choose so they can snoop around for things to report... for the children.
So please, don't give me that 'for the children' line in the comments. It is not for the children. It is for the tax revenue it can raise. If politicians really believed their lives were in danger from aeroplane travel they'd have banned it. They have not. They would be driving Toyota Prius cars. They are not. Travel is the same as before, it's just taxed more. Therefore it has nothing to do with saving lives, because politicians would be first in line for that. It has everything to do with squeezing more money out of you.
There is no logic to it. Look at this and despair. Trees are the best carbon dioxide absorbers available and our Green Men think it's a good idea to cut them all down, ship them around the world and burn them for a trivial return on energy production. Do you actually believe they give a stuff about carbon dioxide?
Our countryside is dotted with wind farms. Guess why the windmills don't blow down? Think in terms of massive concrete blocks, one under each windmill. The windmills are made of steel. The carbon footprint of a windmill is far higher than the equivalent in coal-fired energy production and yet they are 'green'.
There is no global warming. The globe is cooling. Man-made carbon emissions are nothing compared to volcanic and other natural emissions. None of it will stop the world cooling. If it tips into an ice age while we're all turning off our power supplies, the death toll will be unimaginable and it will be a matter of months before it's all over for us. Forget the children. There won't be any.
It is all a scam. I've seen a lot of scams and learned how to recognise them, but this one is orders of magnitude above any other.
This one is a planet-killer.
It's not happening. Instead, the Earth is now cooling. Oh, it was warming up to around ten years ago but now it's cooling again and with sunspot activity extraordinarily low, it can cool quite fast. The Global Warmers who insist we are causing warming by producing CO2 emissions that barely touch on those from volcanoes or marshlands are all demanding that we throw away all our heat sources because otherwise, global temperature might rise by a few degrees over a period of centuries.
You know how fast global cooling can happen? Go on, have a guess. If an ice age started today, how long before Scotland is under ice? Centuries? Decades? Years?
Months.
Global cooling cannot be blamed on the greenhouse effect nor can it be blamed on emissions. That's why you don't hear those words. Instead, it's 'climate change' and we are to take the blame and pay the taxes because somehow, moving little bits of paper around will cause the Earth to stop its natural cycles of warm and cold and settle into a steady temperature forever. Something it has never done and will never do. The climate changes. Sometimes it gets warmer and sometimes it gets cooler. We've been through a warming patch and now we're in a cooling patch. It might or might not tip into ice age, it could go back to warming again but that does not mean that any of it has anything to do with what we build or burn.
It also does not mean that we can stop it. No matter how much tax we pay to people who run half a dozen huge houses each and who fly the world in jets to tell us about 'carbon footprints' and the evils of patio heaters. Those who want us to discard all power sources and live in mud huts are the real danger.
Because if that ice age does come, it's not going to be a matter of 'in a few decades'. It'll be 'this time next year, you'll live in an igloo'.
Take a look at this article on the polar bear.
"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.
The words of a polar bear biologist with 20 years' experience. Or the word of Al Gore, a politician with a huge house and a vast vested interest in the whole 'climate change' industry. You choose.
The global warming argument?
"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."
Bear numbers are increasing so they're in danger from global warming and anyone who denies it is a bear-hunter. He ignores the detail that conservation efforts would be totally ineffective if the globe was warming because the bears hunt on ice and if there's a lot less ice, where are these increased bear numbers living?
This technique is well known in the UK, where anyone who so much as mentions immigration is a racist, anyone who objects to Sharia law is an islamophobe, anyone who objects to the State-driven ID cards or criminal records checks or collection of DNA for the database must be a criminal in hiding, and so on. They pick the most evil thing they can think of and link objectors to that in an effort to silence them. For 'climate change denier', go back to the days of the Inquisition and read 'heretic'. The techniques of such people never vary. I have a friend who has studied them and who refers to them as 'The Righteous'. I used to think of him as a crazed conspiracy theorist but now I'm starting to wonder. The techniques he describes are still in use.
Every summer we hear about arctic ice melting, and every (northern) winter we hear about antarctic ice melting, when it's summer down there. It grows back in winter but that's never mentioned. Just think about that for a while.
A favourite technique used by these people is 'for the children'. Every adult in the UK is a suspected paedophile and must be checked and catalogued 'for the children'. Smokers are banned from everywhere 'for the children'. Anyone buying alcohol in a supermarket might find they are refused if they happen to have a child with them - for the children. Lately, the State wants access to anyone's home at any time they choose so they can snoop around for things to report... for the children.
So please, don't give me that 'for the children' line in the comments. It is not for the children. It is for the tax revenue it can raise. If politicians really believed their lives were in danger from aeroplane travel they'd have banned it. They have not. They would be driving Toyota Prius cars. They are not. Travel is the same as before, it's just taxed more. Therefore it has nothing to do with saving lives, because politicians would be first in line for that. It has everything to do with squeezing more money out of you.
There is no logic to it. Look at this and despair. Trees are the best carbon dioxide absorbers available and our Green Men think it's a good idea to cut them all down, ship them around the world and burn them for a trivial return on energy production. Do you actually believe they give a stuff about carbon dioxide?
Our countryside is dotted with wind farms. Guess why the windmills don't blow down? Think in terms of massive concrete blocks, one under each windmill. The windmills are made of steel. The carbon footprint of a windmill is far higher than the equivalent in coal-fired energy production and yet they are 'green'.
There is no global warming. The globe is cooling. Man-made carbon emissions are nothing compared to volcanic and other natural emissions. None of it will stop the world cooling. If it tips into an ice age while we're all turning off our power supplies, the death toll will be unimaginable and it will be a matter of months before it's all over for us. Forget the children. There won't be any.
It is all a scam. I've seen a lot of scams and learned how to recognise them, but this one is orders of magnitude above any other.
This one is a planet-killer.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Not always easy.
Fakes come in many guises, ranging from the simply deluded to the outright scammer. One thing that generally starts the fake-o-meter twitching is when they ask for money.
In the old days, and occasionally still, a gypsy fortune teller might ask you to cross her palm with silver. She was not actually asking for money although let's be fair, she wouldn't have been wealthy and would not have turned down a donation. What she meant was literally what she said - take something silver and draw it across her palm. Why, I'm not sure, maybe it was something to 'activate the power' or maybe it was a matter of showing trust - that you could put something valuable in her hand and she wouldn't steal it from you. You cannot form any sort of bond with someone who doesn't trust you.
Now we have those massively wealthy 'mediums' who claim to be able to call up any spirit associated with anyone at any time and who can do it on the phone or internet via an assistant (excuse me while I pause to swear a lot) where the interaction involves a voice or typed text and no actual medium at all (another pause...) and they charge money for this.
It doesn't work like that. Mediums don't know who's going to turn up. There is no way to make money from mediumship. No medium could stand in front of an audience of strangers and immediately get the right number of spirits to match the length of the show, none of those spirits being unconnected with anyone and never, ever, finding that someone's brought the whole dead family along. My ancestors are not going to know what phones are and are not likely to turn up at the other end of the line if I talk to a medium on the phone. If they turn up they'll be at my end of the line where the medium can't be talking to them.
So I have that first guideline. If they ask for money, they're most probably faking and the more money they want, the higher up the fake-scale they go. Phone and internet mediumship is just stupid.
That's mediums. What about others? Reiki, homeopathy, astrology, crystal work and so on don't rely on the vagaries of spirits. They rely on internal or external chemical, physiological or physical attributes and if those things are reproducible then it's possible to make money from them. I'm only talking about spirits in this post.
The other side of mediums, the 'anti-medium', is the exorcist. In recent years (the last 2000) this has been the sole preserve of religion. That's because religion attributes all spirit contact as evil and only religion has the competency to deal with it. Which is rubbish.
I've recently driven an annoying presence from my house through no action other than being more annoying to it than it was to me. I'm not an exorcist. I did not banish it. I'd like it to come back because I'm not finished with it. I make no claim to exorcist powers and have not witnessed an actual 'demonic possession' of anyone and if I did, I'd be unlikely to try to get rid of it without collecting a lot of data first.
As with mediums, I am sceptical of any exorcist that charges for their services.
So this one poses a dilemma.
He charges nothing. He enjoys success but has no interest in fame or money. However, the explanation for the boy's behaviour given by the priest is entirely plausible except where the priest says the exorcist made matters worse. He did not. In fact, the exorcist appears to have effected a cure - which could be real or psychosomatic. In this case, did the exorcist drive out a real demon or merely set the boy's mind at ease?
He believes he exorcises demons. I don't think he's a fake because he's not scamming anyone. Is he deluded or is he really doing it? It's not possible to tell for sure from that one case but I'd be interested to hear more from anyone who's experienced such things.
In the old days, and occasionally still, a gypsy fortune teller might ask you to cross her palm with silver. She was not actually asking for money although let's be fair, she wouldn't have been wealthy and would not have turned down a donation. What she meant was literally what she said - take something silver and draw it across her palm. Why, I'm not sure, maybe it was something to 'activate the power' or maybe it was a matter of showing trust - that you could put something valuable in her hand and she wouldn't steal it from you. You cannot form any sort of bond with someone who doesn't trust you.
Now we have those massively wealthy 'mediums' who claim to be able to call up any spirit associated with anyone at any time and who can do it on the phone or internet via an assistant (excuse me while I pause to swear a lot) where the interaction involves a voice or typed text and no actual medium at all (another pause...) and they charge money for this.
It doesn't work like that. Mediums don't know who's going to turn up. There is no way to make money from mediumship. No medium could stand in front of an audience of strangers and immediately get the right number of spirits to match the length of the show, none of those spirits being unconnected with anyone and never, ever, finding that someone's brought the whole dead family along. My ancestors are not going to know what phones are and are not likely to turn up at the other end of the line if I talk to a medium on the phone. If they turn up they'll be at my end of the line where the medium can't be talking to them.
So I have that first guideline. If they ask for money, they're most probably faking and the more money they want, the higher up the fake-scale they go. Phone and internet mediumship is just stupid.
That's mediums. What about others? Reiki, homeopathy, astrology, crystal work and so on don't rely on the vagaries of spirits. They rely on internal or external chemical, physiological or physical attributes and if those things are reproducible then it's possible to make money from them. I'm only talking about spirits in this post.
The other side of mediums, the 'anti-medium', is the exorcist. In recent years (the last 2000) this has been the sole preserve of religion. That's because religion attributes all spirit contact as evil and only religion has the competency to deal with it. Which is rubbish.
I've recently driven an annoying presence from my house through no action other than being more annoying to it than it was to me. I'm not an exorcist. I did not banish it. I'd like it to come back because I'm not finished with it. I make no claim to exorcist powers and have not witnessed an actual 'demonic possession' of anyone and if I did, I'd be unlikely to try to get rid of it without collecting a lot of data first.
As with mediums, I am sceptical of any exorcist that charges for their services.
So this one poses a dilemma.
He charges nothing. He enjoys success but has no interest in fame or money. However, the explanation for the boy's behaviour given by the priest is entirely plausible except where the priest says the exorcist made matters worse. He did not. In fact, the exorcist appears to have effected a cure - which could be real or psychosomatic. In this case, did the exorcist drive out a real demon or merely set the boy's mind at ease?
He believes he exorcises demons. I don't think he's a fake because he's not scamming anyone. Is he deluded or is he really doing it? It's not possible to tell for sure from that one case but I'd be interested to hear more from anyone who's experienced such things.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Keeping quiet.
For those of you outside the UK, the news you hear coming out of this country must sound completely unbelievable. The truth is more bizarre than any news you might have heard.
We have almost total CCTV coverage and a spy-state Stalin would have sold his own mother for.
Dawn raids are commonplace, for crimes such as 'swearing at a council official' or 'fighting in the playground'. Rapists get told off and sent home. That is not a joke.
People are fined for feeding ducks in the park. That's unbelievable, yes? This report has a picture of the actual crime recorded on the penalty notice.
We have a national health service that is the envy of the world's governments. Nowhere else could the State dispose of inconvenient old people so efficiently. I hear the American government has a similar system in mind.
That's just a sample. It is now dangerous to take photographs in public. It is not illegal to do so but we have all-encompassing 'anti-terrorist' laws that means anyone with a camera can be stopped and searched and if they don't like the look of you, well...
Hanging around derelict buildings at night has become a very dangerous occupation. Not because of falling masonry or holes or even the risk of demonic possession.
Because this country's government has lost all reason and the petty officials never had any. Orwell's 1984 reads like a world we'd all love to live in. This is much worse. Nobody even knows what the laws are any more. Any official can make them up on the spot and hand out a fine.
I'm still working, but much more carefully than before. If you send me Email, be aware that my government will keep a copy so watch what you say.
I might move to North Korea. It sounds much more relaxed there.
We have almost total CCTV coverage and a spy-state Stalin would have sold his own mother for.
Dawn raids are commonplace, for crimes such as 'swearing at a council official' or 'fighting in the playground'. Rapists get told off and sent home. That is not a joke.
People are fined for feeding ducks in the park. That's unbelievable, yes? This report has a picture of the actual crime recorded on the penalty notice.
We have a national health service that is the envy of the world's governments. Nowhere else could the State dispose of inconvenient old people so efficiently. I hear the American government has a similar system in mind.
That's just a sample. It is now dangerous to take photographs in public. It is not illegal to do so but we have all-encompassing 'anti-terrorist' laws that means anyone with a camera can be stopped and searched and if they don't like the look of you, well...
Hanging around derelict buildings at night has become a very dangerous occupation. Not because of falling masonry or holes or even the risk of demonic possession.
Because this country's government has lost all reason and the petty officials never had any. Orwell's 1984 reads like a world we'd all love to live in. This is much worse. Nobody even knows what the laws are any more. Any official can make them up on the spot and hand out a fine.
I'm still working, but much more carefully than before. If you send me Email, be aware that my government will keep a copy so watch what you say.
I might move to North Korea. It sounds much more relaxed there.
Friday, November 06, 2009
It's nice to look at, but is it Science?
New Scientist recently had a story on out-of-body experiences. All manner of perfectly plausible and entirely possible explanations for the experience were put forward, except one. The possibility that it actually happens.
Now, any scientist who wants to keep his job will tell you that's because it's impossible for the mind to leave the body at any time, in any form. It's not possible. If it were possible, there'd be bodiless minds going about the place even after someone died. Everyone knows there are no such things as ghosts. Spooky feelings can be produced by fluctuating magnetic fields so that explains it all.
Humans have never been shown to be able to detect the effects of magnetic fields. We can't migrate over thousands of miles as birds do, with no maps to guide us. And yet this magnetic-field-detection is now an explanation for phenomena that 'the ordinary people' report as ghostly. It's all very reminiscent of those scientists who dismissed the correspondences between medium reports from widely separated parts of the world as telepathy - which they don't believe is possible either. So the inexplicable is explained by reference to the equally inexplicable and science continues to pretend it's superior to religion. Science requires an open mind. To everything. No matter how wild it might appear at first glance. If it can't be disproved, then it can't be dismissed. (For the Popper falsifiability geeks, I don't regard Popper as a prophet of a scientific religion. His methods are good but they are not Gospel. To regard them as such is not science. He might well be horrified to find that they are).
For around twenty years, the CIA tested remote viewing as a possible means of spying on enemies. Then they stopped. Because it was all hokum? Perhaps, but who really thinks it took the CIA twenty years to work that out? The results released to the public aren't very good but then if you were the CIA, would you release your good results to the public? Would it be a good idea to make public something that you'd been using to spy on other countries?
Okay, if it did work, why did they stop the program? It's not that difficult to work out. Look at Google Earth. In a lot of places you can zoom in far enough to make out individual people. Would you think that the military spy satellites are better, worse or the same as Google Earth? Since Google Earth get their images from satellites they don't own, it's a fair bet that the military images are better than the ones you or I can get hold of.
The CIA remote viewing project ended in 1995. Why? One reason might be that by 1995, satellite images were so far superior to the remote-viewer sketches that there was no need for the Stargate project any more. No need for remote viewing when you can get an exact image from a camera in the sky. The CIA's dismissal of a twenty-year project is not proof that remote viewing is impossible. It merely proves that technology superseded the need for it.
Military surveillance is now so good that a satellite can drop a bomb on the top of your head and choose which hair to incinerate first. They don't need the remote viewers any more.
Can humans detect electric, magnetic or electromagnetic fields? I don't know. Is telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing real? I've never experienced them so I don't know. Well, that's not quite true but it could be coincidence so I still don't know for sure. Are ghosts real? Absolutely, because I've met them, but I can't produce proof so scientifically, I can't publish and that is what counts in my world. It's going to be hell to set up any kind of reproducible experiment where ghosts are concerned. They aren't lab animals and they do as they please.
I've wondered about the voices heard by schizophrenics. The voices are assumed to be unreal and they go away when treated with drugs. Is that because the voices weren't real and the drugs cured a disorder - or could it be that the voices were real and the drugs removed the patient's ability to hear them? Are you sure which it is? Why?
It doesn't matter to the patient of course, they just want the voices to stop. What if they were a medium who hadn't realised it, and the voices were in fact real? That would be frightening for the subject and they would accept drugs to shut their ability down. Much as those whose eyes are oversensitive would welcome dark glasses (I have reactolite lenses that darken when the ambient light brightens - almost perfect) and those whose hearing is unusually acute might welcome earmuffs, the medium who doesn't want the ability would be delighted to have a pill that shut it down. Actually, alcohol does much the same thing.
This is not to say that all schizophrenics are really untapped mediums. Some are undoubtedly nuts. All of them? Maybe. Maybe not. A scientist must consider the possibility. It might be wrong but until it is shown to be wrong, it remains a possibility.
Science these days is full of dogma and belief systems to rival the Catholic church. You cannot question global warming - why not? Is it science or religion? The ice caps have increased in size in recent years, the polar bears continue to increase in number, the sea is cooling, not warming, the recent propaganda about the 'first German boat ever to make the northeast passage' ignores the detail that it's Russian waters and the Russians have been using that route since 1935, and yet we are not allowed to question the Green God's Gospel? Is that science?
Quantum physics and string theory tell us that there are at least eleven dimensions and uncountable parallel universes, none of which we can see and none of which provide any evidence of their existence outside expert thought, and yet the same experts state there can be no God, no ghosts, no telepathy... Science tells us we are affected by barely detectable magnetic fields but are unaffected by the detectable influences of planetary positions... Science tells us that modern industrialisation is causing global warming although it was much warmer in the Middle Ages when there were much fewer people, no electricity and no factories, and the world didn't end.
Science must be open. Must be. It's the whole point of it. You might, as an individual scientist, dismiss something as not worth your time to study and that is perfectly reasonable. Nobody can be expected to study every aspect of everything.
To state that something is impossible based purely on your personal beliefs is not science. Science pays no heed to personal beliefs.
To state that the world must think as you do and believe what you believe without question is religion. Whether applied to global warming or any other subject, including ghosts. You don't believe it so it must be false. That is not science.
If you think that way, you are the AntiScientist.
Now, any scientist who wants to keep his job will tell you that's because it's impossible for the mind to leave the body at any time, in any form. It's not possible. If it were possible, there'd be bodiless minds going about the place even after someone died. Everyone knows there are no such things as ghosts. Spooky feelings can be produced by fluctuating magnetic fields so that explains it all.
Humans have never been shown to be able to detect the effects of magnetic fields. We can't migrate over thousands of miles as birds do, with no maps to guide us. And yet this magnetic-field-detection is now an explanation for phenomena that 'the ordinary people' report as ghostly. It's all very reminiscent of those scientists who dismissed the correspondences between medium reports from widely separated parts of the world as telepathy - which they don't believe is possible either. So the inexplicable is explained by reference to the equally inexplicable and science continues to pretend it's superior to religion. Science requires an open mind. To everything. No matter how wild it might appear at first glance. If it can't be disproved, then it can't be dismissed. (For the Popper falsifiability geeks, I don't regard Popper as a prophet of a scientific religion. His methods are good but they are not Gospel. To regard them as such is not science. He might well be horrified to find that they are).
For around twenty years, the CIA tested remote viewing as a possible means of spying on enemies. Then they stopped. Because it was all hokum? Perhaps, but who really thinks it took the CIA twenty years to work that out? The results released to the public aren't very good but then if you were the CIA, would you release your good results to the public? Would it be a good idea to make public something that you'd been using to spy on other countries?
Okay, if it did work, why did they stop the program? It's not that difficult to work out. Look at Google Earth. In a lot of places you can zoom in far enough to make out individual people. Would you think that the military spy satellites are better, worse or the same as Google Earth? Since Google Earth get their images from satellites they don't own, it's a fair bet that the military images are better than the ones you or I can get hold of.
The CIA remote viewing project ended in 1995. Why? One reason might be that by 1995, satellite images were so far superior to the remote-viewer sketches that there was no need for the Stargate project any more. No need for remote viewing when you can get an exact image from a camera in the sky. The CIA's dismissal of a twenty-year project is not proof that remote viewing is impossible. It merely proves that technology superseded the need for it.
Military surveillance is now so good that a satellite can drop a bomb on the top of your head and choose which hair to incinerate first. They don't need the remote viewers any more.
Can humans detect electric, magnetic or electromagnetic fields? I don't know. Is telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing real? I've never experienced them so I don't know. Well, that's not quite true but it could be coincidence so I still don't know for sure. Are ghosts real? Absolutely, because I've met them, but I can't produce proof so scientifically, I can't publish and that is what counts in my world. It's going to be hell to set up any kind of reproducible experiment where ghosts are concerned. They aren't lab animals and they do as they please.
I've wondered about the voices heard by schizophrenics. The voices are assumed to be unreal and they go away when treated with drugs. Is that because the voices weren't real and the drugs cured a disorder - or could it be that the voices were real and the drugs removed the patient's ability to hear them? Are you sure which it is? Why?
It doesn't matter to the patient of course, they just want the voices to stop. What if they were a medium who hadn't realised it, and the voices were in fact real? That would be frightening for the subject and they would accept drugs to shut their ability down. Much as those whose eyes are oversensitive would welcome dark glasses (I have reactolite lenses that darken when the ambient light brightens - almost perfect) and those whose hearing is unusually acute might welcome earmuffs, the medium who doesn't want the ability would be delighted to have a pill that shut it down. Actually, alcohol does much the same thing.
This is not to say that all schizophrenics are really untapped mediums. Some are undoubtedly nuts. All of them? Maybe. Maybe not. A scientist must consider the possibility. It might be wrong but until it is shown to be wrong, it remains a possibility.
Science these days is full of dogma and belief systems to rival the Catholic church. You cannot question global warming - why not? Is it science or religion? The ice caps have increased in size in recent years, the polar bears continue to increase in number, the sea is cooling, not warming, the recent propaganda about the 'first German boat ever to make the northeast passage' ignores the detail that it's Russian waters and the Russians have been using that route since 1935, and yet we are not allowed to question the Green God's Gospel? Is that science?
Quantum physics and string theory tell us that there are at least eleven dimensions and uncountable parallel universes, none of which we can see and none of which provide any evidence of their existence outside expert thought, and yet the same experts state there can be no God, no ghosts, no telepathy... Science tells us we are affected by barely detectable magnetic fields but are unaffected by the detectable influences of planetary positions... Science tells us that modern industrialisation is causing global warming although it was much warmer in the Middle Ages when there were much fewer people, no electricity and no factories, and the world didn't end.
Science must be open. Must be. It's the whole point of it. You might, as an individual scientist, dismiss something as not worth your time to study and that is perfectly reasonable. Nobody can be expected to study every aspect of everything.
To state that something is impossible based purely on your personal beliefs is not science. Science pays no heed to personal beliefs.
To state that the world must think as you do and believe what you believe without question is religion. Whether applied to global warming or any other subject, including ghosts. You don't believe it so it must be false. That is not science.
If you think that way, you are the AntiScientist.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Halloween - no luck.
No luck at Halloween as far as I have been able to tell. I went to the old mill near the lab but it was windy and rained often. So I have pictures of blowing leaves and raindrops and if there's anything else in there, I can't find it. The picture above is a rare still and non-wet moment in which the leaves and branches aren't a blur. Slightly brightened, it contains a good image of the moon through clouds but that's about it.
The last few years have been plagued with rain. Well, it's the UK and this sort of thing happens from time to time. It's not good news if you're looking around old places at night. It's cold too.
Just have to keep trying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)