December 1st, 2009


The results were certain before the first experiment.

Apologies for the abrupt disappearance. I didn't die. I mixed red wine, rose, and whisky and had the best night's sleep I've had in years. Felt great after suitable rehydration. Then someone ruined my great mood by reminding me of a certain deadline that was yesterday. I've finished that one now and it's only a day late. Which is pretty good.

What I do is fairly flexible. I've said before that the whole Clostridium difficile project could be wiped out if hospitals really did clean up, rather than awarding themselves 'excellent' because most of the dirt isn't on the patients. Even in the unlikely event that one of those managers grows a brain, that wouldn't put me out of business. There's still the Salmonella and the Campylobacter stuff, both of which are more than simple hygiene problems and will keep the likes of me busy for some time yet. And of course, Listeria and MRSA and many others. If one problem is solved, I'll move on to the next.

Government doesn't set things up that way. They have, for example, the 'racial equality commission' which, if it ever achieves fuill racial equality, will immediately become irrelevant. Therefore it is in the interest of that group to ensure there is constant inequality, otherwise they are out of a job. The organisation set up to solve a problem cannot solve it without self-destructing. It's never going to work.

If you set up a research unit to study 'climate', the unit can spend the next century working on past climate, prediction of climate, manipulation, making it rain in the Sahara or not rain in Cumbria... plenty to do. If you set up a unit to study 'climate change' and load it with cash because it has a specific problem to study, then that unit can never report back 'it's not really a problem after all' or it'll self-destruct. Their funding is dependent on the existence of the problem, therefore they must, at all costs, maintain the problem in order to survive. So must any associated jobs, such as a 'climate change economist'.

I can't blame the scientists as people, really, because their jobs, their technician's jobs and so on all depend on climate change being a real danger. I can't respect them as scientists either because they hide data, lose data, shout down dissent, manipulate and discredit the peer review process and generally act like politicians.

When the 'deniers' make a mistake, acknowledge it and correct it, these climate changers cry 'Oh, one rule for us, another for them, eh? They were wrong too. See? See? Public enquiry!'

Yes, we see. While the climate changers deny FOI requests and hide/destroy data, scream 'Heretic' at anyone who disagrees and demand that everyone believe their new religion without question, their opposition spot a mistake, admit it and correct it. In public. We see all too well and we are shaking our heads in sadness at what this climate debacle is doing to scientific integrity.

Then we have the IPCC, whose very existence depends absolutely on climate change being a problem. Every member is paid, every member has a pension to look forward to, only because there's a problem. That organisation will never announce 'It's not a problem after all' . It has to be a problem or they're all out of work. It is in their interests to perpetuate the idea that we are all going to die. It's also a convenient excuse to steal more money from us because history has shown that the dinosaurs would still be alive today if only they had paid more tax.

We keep hearing that anyone who dissents from the global warming nonsense is in the pay of the oil companies. The oil companies will sell oil no matter what the climate science says. It doesn't affect their profits in the slightest. They have no need to pay people to be 'deniers'. How much oil did they sell just to get all those delegates and activists to Copenhagen? The oil companies are doing just fine out of global warming.

What is less well advertised is how much money the IPCC make from the global warming scam. It's simple. All their income comes from it. Withpout global warming, oil companies will sell just as much as they do now but the IPCC's income, and that of the environmental economists and all the rest of them will cease entirely.

There's your vested interest.

The entire climate change industry depends on perpetuating the idea that climate change is a problem and that something can be done if only you give up more money in taxes. Those taxes will then increase the funding to the climate change industry so it'll get bigger and demand even more money. That industry cannot survive unless climate change is a real problem so it will never allow the probelm to be solved, nor will it ever admit there is no real problem, nor that there is no solution other than getting used to it.

It's a self-perpetuating scam. There can never be any report from any climate-changer that will say 'It's all okay. You can sack me now'.

The whole thing is falling apart but the vested interests will pull the bits back together for as long as possible.

Not for the planet. For the money.