söndag 16 december 2018

Little manipulated Greta in Sweden

The little girl Greta has become famous because of her protest against our "doing nothing against the climate" and her call for immediate action on climate change. (Whatever that would be?) But this is not just her own idea - she is part of a big propaganda machine for promoting a book that her mother has written. The journalist Andreas Henriksson has also discovered an apparent manipulation of a facebook account to create a picture of big support.
But that is "almost nothing" compared to the big interests that are behind this movement that was created a long time ago.

You can start here with a short, easy and clear mindmap of those events.
The film is in Swedish!

PR-maskinen bakom Greta


Articles in Swedish:
Greta Thunbergs rekordsnabba aktivistkarriär. 
The text is in Swedish, but there is a button for translating it into other languages and most of the links lead to articles written in English.
PR-spinnet bakom Greta Thunberg        
Aftonbladet 
Dagens Nyheter 

This little girl (they say she´s 15 years old, but she looks like  only 10-11 years old) is just presenting some good sounding, popular words and the impression is that she is just being used by her parents and put forward by clever PR-tricks.

Possible that her concern about earth is a reaction from having been informed about climate change at school, but she is not and her teachers are not climate experts. They are just following the main stream agenda that has been set by the politicians (remember Al Gore.) They only repeat the most popular view that everyone is pumped up with. It is easy to hear on Greta that she is just a little sheep in the big flock.

Maybe they wanted to make a follow up of the emotionally so touching 12 year old Severn Cullis-Suzuki, The Girl Who Silenced the World for 5 Minutes.     More about her.




To understand how climate works is not easy, not even the scientists know all about it and humans can not do anything to change such big cycles. But politicians can always create and use a fear that they pump up people with. They need to have a big enemy as an excuse for a huge industry that is created to combat this enemy.

Around 1975 the fear of a new ice age was on the front pages. That was at least more logical as we know that it will come, sooner or later. An ice age is also more dangerous for us so there is a reason to be afraid.


That this PR behind Greta works well and gets response in media is not because it is aimed at the politicians as she claims. She wants "immediate action" and that is exactly what the politicians also want because they can use this concept for raising the gasoline prices and forcing all people to buy new electric cars. They can do anything and if they just call it "immediate action" and claim that "this is what the children of the world are calling for and it is our duty to...." then nobody dares to protest. "A call for immediate action" can also be used to force people to allow new, huge windmills everywhere, which is the start of a never-ending killing of the forests. Politicians call it "green energy" and people believe it.

Little Greta does not know that she indirectly is sponsoring another huge industry that is really killing the nature, animals, and insects. The windmills. Not to talk about the production of billions of new electric cars. All the big industries are far more dangerous than some warming. If the earth is dangerously sensitive to a warmer climate (which it has not been before) it is because we have destroyed almost all the forests on earth, so there is almost no nature left to absorb CO2. Huge industries are killing nature and animals in so many different ways. It is not because of the climate that all the insects are soon to be killed. The food producers all over the world are constantly spraying the fields with poison, with insecticides. And that is probably much more dangerous - to whole nature including humans.
A warmer climate is not dangerous to nature. It is not dangerous to people who live in the forests. It is only dangerous to those who live in the big cities, made by concrete and black asphalt, where the temperature can get very high also now on hot days. People in a huge city cannot stand more heat in summer. If we had been living a relatively natural life in natural forests, then we would not have had to get afraid of any global warming.
A warmer climate had only meant that we got more food. In a natural forestial landscape, there are creeks, lakes, and rivers. If we now are afraid this fear is an effect of the actions that we have made against the whole nature, which we have almost killed in all possible ways. 
It is not just about the climate. We are created to live in nature and not in big cities.


"Global Warming" is by many experts called a hoax. They say that the effect of CO2 is blown up too much by politicians to support their interests in power and money. They say that climate computer models do not match reality, because they are not programmed with the right information. "Global warming" got changed to "Climate Change" when it was not getting warmer and also because it is not possible to deny that our climate is changing (as it always is).

If you look at climate diagrams you can see that the rise and fall of the solar spots coincide with the rise and fall of temperature on earth. Many scientists (the older ones that are no longer afraid of losing the job) say that as we cannot foresee the sun activity we can also not know in advance how the global temperature will behave. The 11-year sunspot cycle is not the only cycle. There are bigger ones and we do not know exactly when the next ice age will come.

But something about it we can know from the Milankovitch Cycles. 
Earth is not always at the same distance from the sun.

Temperature is always going up and down
and it is not exceptionally warm now.
Look at the statistics that cover millions of years (at least look at thousands of years) and not just 200 years!
Around 1600 we hade the Little Ice Age and after that cold period, the temperature has been rising. Of course! The best would be to come back to the warm period of the early Middle Ages when we had a high culture with a thriving nature and lots of foods.

Climate Change after the last big ice age.







Imagine that you check the temperature every hour during the early morning.
Then you also get a curve that goes up every hour and if you don´t know that soon the cold night will also come.... if you don´t know that, there will be a reason for panic. 
 
Ups and downs in temperature during days and nights are as normal as ups and downs in temperature over centuries and thousands and millions of years. There is nothing that our politicians can do about these big swings.
The temperature was rising also before our industrial revolution. It has been rising many times in Earth´s history.

The real danger would be if climate headed towards a new cold period (an ice age) because if our northern countries got covered with ice we would not be able to be here. We would have to move to Africa. An ice age is something that happens every now and then and it will happen again. 

The killing of nature is, on the contrary, something that they would be able to do something about. If they wanted to. It would be better to stop the production of electric cars and instead of that concentrate on making "clean motors" with the capacity of a high reduction of the exhaust emissions. These cars could use algae as fuel, the greenest fuel that exists as the cultivation is a natural solar power.

Something is wrong, everyone seems to understand that, but to see what is really wrong is too difficult. This feeling creates fear and anger and the politicians (or the power behind the scene, the big bankers ) use this to manipulate people in desired directions, which is at present to create a worldwide use of electric cars and windmills. The mills destroy life in the countryside as people cannot live near them.

Do not believe the propaganda of the elite! 

The Elite that controls the money is the problem and they control our politicians and big information channels and also professors at high schools. Who they are and what they do is not printed in our newspapers or being reported in the TV-news. It is to be found on the internet, but there is so much info from all sides, both true and fake, so it is difficult to know what is what.

These powerful people (oligarchs) are quite intelligent and so far they have controlled mainstream opinion. But their propaganda block begins to crack down because of all the free channels that the Internet has provided us with.

An oligarch is a member of an oligarchy, a power structure where control resides in a small number of people.
Bilderberg Group  Secret meetings with politicians.

New World Order It is not surprising that NWO is seen as a conspiration.

Trilateral Commission The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental, nonpartisan discussion group founded by David Rockefeller in July 1973 to foster closer cooperation among Japan, Western Europe, and North America.
Critics accuse the Commission of promoting a global consensus among the international ruling classes in order to manage international affairs in the interest of the financial and industrial elites under the Trilateral umbrella.
In his 1980 book With No Apologies, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater suggested the discussion group was "a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical... [in] the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved

Now they want to force people all over the world to junk the old cars and to replace them with electric cars. An enormously huge industrial complex (also producing big junkyards) that forces people to buy new things. Of course, that is good for the Western and American industries but it can hardly be "saving the planet". They call it "green" but it is probably just greenwashing.

They want to build windmills in nature, in the mountains, in the forests! The mills kill the big birds, They kill the bats (the variations in air-pressure make their lungs implode). The big wings spread bisphenol A with the wind and poison the ground and the waters. 

The only green thing would be to let nature live!

Stop taking down the forests for profit. Let the wild animals have their space! A living nature with all the animals, plants and microbes form the metabolism of the planet. This whole ecosystem is producing the oxygen that we need for living. Algae also consume CO2 (if that makes people happy.)

What we are doing to the metabolism of Earth is then also happening in our own metabolism and it creates cancer and auto-immune diseases, which we will not be able to handle when nature has died. Mono-cultures that are being genetically modified and sprayed with glyphosate will not solve the problem of all our diseases. It will just make the situation worse and the pharmaceutical industry richer. This business is also controlled by the ruling bankers.

The absolutely most green method to produce energy is to grow algae.

If anything is green the algae are! They can be cultivated everywhere, in big pools and in small pet bottles. These algae can be used for both food and car fuel. Such a culture consumes CO2, gives us oil for fuel, "gasoline" for the cars and also protein-rich food. This is a copy of nature´s own method of producing energy from the solar rays. It is green solar energy! Natures own solar cells.
The algae that are being sold as healthy food are called Spirulina.





Read more about Climate Change and the mainstream view.








lördag 15 december 2018

Cancer and angiogenesis

The cancer cells are growing because they have a support of nutrition, they have a blood support and without these blood vessels they will not live. The forming of new blood vessels does not occur in a healthy grown up person unless there is a special cause for it, as for example menstruation,  childbirth or a wound.  The body can produce stimulators to blood vessel growth when it is necessary, and also inhibitors. This growth is called angiogenesis and when it gets out of balance it is associated with at least 70 major diseases that billions of people have today.

Science is of course interested in finding a method to inhibit this abnormal angiogenesis. The idea is to create a pill that blocks abnormal angiogenesis. Such an antiangiogenesis, an inhibitor, would deprive the cancer cells of the oxygen and the nutrients and they would die.

Most grown up people have small cancer cells (0,5 mm) in the body, but because of lack of nutrition these cells never grow big and they do not get dangerous. Our angiogenesis inhibitors defend us so these cancer cells that we have are harmless until the angiogenesis is turned on and they get blood supply.

Cancer and inflammatory diseases are linked to this extra blood flow. Inflammation and angiogenesis are two separate things, but they seem to stimulate each other. In inflammation, the balance is clearly tipped in favor of angiogenesis. Read more...

We have often heard that antioxidants in berries, fruits and vegetables are "anti-inflammatory" but here we can now ad a new concept. The same food seems to be listed also among the anti-angiogenesis. 

We now also know that vegetable oils, that we consume so much of (because they have fooled us into believeing that they are healthy), are inflammatory! Grains can also be listed here as they contain much omega-6-fat. We can take oils from grains and seeds.

Imagine that you are in an old healthy forest 20.000 years ago and you go out and search for food! Do you think that you would eat the grains from the grasses??? No! You would do the most easy thing - you would eat greens and fruits and then you would go down to the lake and get a fish (or a frog). Humans have no evolutionary basis for eating grass. Seeds are difficult to eat and raw beans are usually poisonous (five raw kidney beans can kill a person).

The two phenomena, angiogenesis and inflammation, have long been coupled together in many chronic inflammatory disorders with distinct etiopathogenic origin, including psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, diabetes, and cancer.
Inflammation and angiogenesis can be triggered by the same molecular events and a treatment has to target both of them.

"Most current therapeutic strategies intended to stop the progress of the tumor vascularization are at a preclinical stage, and only a handful of these strategies are emerging as clinical reality." ScienceDirect

In this video we can see a list of medicines together with a list of natural foods. There are natural greens, herbs and fruits that have the same effect as the future miracle pill. Just start eating them!

And avoid junk food  I would guess that most of our "normal food" thay we see in the shop contain angiogenic growth factors. I already know that much of it is "inflammatory".




Dr Gundry speaks about the good and the bad gut bacteria and how these little things can send signals to other parts of the body to get what they want. I think that it must be highly likely that there are some bacteria that are allies with the cancer cells and help them get the desired blood vessels. Why not? The gut bacteria is of main concern in many videos.

The stories about antioxidants, inflammations, cancer, angiogenesis and gut bacteria sound as if they would just be the same story, seen from different angles.


When angiogenesis is “turned on”, and the cancer cells are fed by sufficient blood vessels, tumours can develop. Antiangiogenic therapy aims to starve the cancer of its blood supply, thus rendering the isolated cancer cells harmless.  Read more... 
Here is also a list with food that have antiangiogenic properties.... oranges, blueberries....

Previous article here.
Cancer, the gold mine of the pharmaceutical industry

More about inflammations (in Swedish).
Allergier, huvudvärk, migrän, astma, artrit, smärtor i kroppen...?


According to Dr Axe 
there is resveratrol also in blueberries,

fredag 14 december 2018

Cancer, the gold mine of the pharmaceutical industry

When I was a kid not many people had cancer (maybe 5%), but today it is every third person (33%).  Why has it increased so much? Is it maybe because all our junk food, sugar, toxic chemicals, microwaves, gmo, stress, pollution and pesticides??? 

What the doctor does to it is surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.
This cancer industry is a huge international business that actively defends it´s position against any kind of natural treatment. Such treatments with diet and herbs have all been declared illegal, i.e. a doctor is not allowed to have a cancer clinic that uses natural methods.

The manager of a multi billion dollar industry has the obligation towards the shareholders to maximise the profit. So such a company is dependent on the sick patients, and this situation takes away any interest in really making sick people healthy again. So they have declared war against the helth practitioners who use natural methods which make people healthy.

That is the background for the book Dödliga mediciner och organiserad brottslighet  (Deadly medicines and organized crime) by professor Peter Gøtzsche,  who accuses the pharmaceutical industry of criminal methods to maximize their profit. He poses the question of how it can be possible that we allow them to lie so much and also to commit repeated crimes causing the death of people. Medical drugs is the third biggest cause of death among americans.

Over one million new cancer diagnoses are made every year in the US and every patient has to spend 50.000 USD on the treatment. But as they have not been treating the cause of the cancer it comes back and usually 2/3 of the treated patients die within five years.

It is a sad story that they also use this method for children, who are in the same time allowed to eat cancerogenic junk food (as these doctors know nothing about healthy food). The companies that "own" the medical schools are not interested in "healthy living"and "holistic methods" and other such annoying things that could eventually ruin their business.

Once upon a time the bankers took over the medical schools by funding them, which gave them the right to control them, and then other kinds of methods were made illegal. Medicine was now intended for business and not for helping people get healthy. "Alternative doctors" who were able to cure cancer had to go to jail for it. It became a crime to cure people with the wrong method.

There are scores of alternative cancer clinics all over the world claiming high success rate, yet most of these treatments have been banned in the US or been driven out of the country, without any investigation. I think it is the same in Sweden.

A famous example is Harry M. Hoxsey who expanded to 17 states by the mid 1950s, constantly battling organized medicine that labeled him a charlatan. He was successfully treating his cancer patients, but all his clinics were closed as they were declared illegal.
His treatment consists of a caustic herbal paste for external cancers or an herbal mixture for "internal" cancers, combined with laxatives, douches, vitamin supplements, and dietary changes.

Those who had the money also took over the propaganda machine, telling mainstream that herbal medicine is just a fake.
97% of the chemotherapy does not work. So why is it used? There is one reason only and that is money! If your doctor prescribes chemotherapy for you, he buys it from the pharmaceutical company and then he sells it to you for a much higher price, putting a lot of money in his own pocket. This is the only kind of prescription that he can make money from in this way.
Most people do not know that the pharmaceutical industry has this kind of control över us!

Chemotherapy and radiation help only 3% of the patients! It takes away the tumour, but the cancer stem cells, which are 1% of the tumour, they are not affected by this therapy. They remain and they just get more resistent and more agressive, so when they start growing again the mortality rate rises drastically.  From 1950 to 2005 the rate of death in cancer decreased with only 5 %, which shows that there is not much advancement in this area.



So... what to do?


And more?

And don´t hold the mobile phone close to the head! I have read somewhere that brain tumour among children has increased much after the introduction of mobile phones! Avoid using wireless equipment at home, especially if you have children, as it can cause other problems also.
Almost 11,000 people are diagnosed each year with a primary brain tumour, including 500 children and young people – that's 30 people every day. I would like to find the statistics för the last 50 years, but I can´t find it. 

And also....talking about that.....it´s not only cancer....don´t let the small girls hold a wireless tablet close to the body. According to Barrie Trower, a former microwave weapons expert, it can affect the eggs in the ovary and when so it can cause hereditary damage to the dna (the damage will be inherited in all coming generations).


Wifi, Microwaves and the Consequences to our Health

Try to avoid everything that contains toxic chemicals.


And watch this before giving money to cancer research.
Läkaren dr Véronique Desaulniers varnar för Rosa bandetkampanjen som syftar till att samla in pengar till cancerforskning. Hon menar att kampanjen inte har åstadkommit något vettigt för att minska cancerriskerna. Istället går endast pengarna till läkemedelsindustrin och till ännu mer riskabel kemoterapi.




onsdag 12 december 2018

Vilken bil är bäst?

Argument mot elbilen

först från Aftonbladets trafikreporter Robert Collin, Nyhetsmorgon TV4.

Andrahandsvärdet = 0
En elbil kommer inte att ha något andrahandsvärde eftersom ingen vill köpa en begagnad elbil, som har en omodern teknologi.

Produktionen > CO2
Om man också räknar med produktionen av elbilen + batterierna + elen så skapar den lika mycket CO2 som de vanliga bensinbilarna.

Motorstopp i den stora skogen
Du kan inte köra den ute på landet för där finns inga laddstolpar överallt. Du kommer bara 15 mil och sedan motorstopp.

Enligt en rapport från Svenska Miljöinstitutet så blir det 15-20 ton CO2-utsläpp av att tillverka ett batteri (det största batteriet). Det motsvarar att man kör några varv runt jorden med en gammal dieselbil.

Ökad el.produktion krävs.
Elbilarna måste laddas. I stora delar av världen produceras denna el. i kolkraftverk, som avger stora mängder CO2.

I Sverige bygger man ut vindkraften för att få mer energi, ofta även i skogen på något berg.
Vinden är förnybar, men dessa 250 meter höga torn är inte förnybara. De förstör skogen där de sätts upp och efter 15-20 år måste de skrotas. Människor kan inte heller bo i närheten av snurrorna eftersom man kan blir sjuk av ultraljuden.
Skogen och djuren blir också förgiftade av att vingarna avger bisfenol A, som är hormonstörande och skadligt för vattenlevande organismer.

Ett batteri håller inte i evighet.
Det måste bytas ut efter några år. Hur länge håller dina bilbatterier? Elbilar kommer med 5-8 års batterigarantier. En Nissan Leaf taxi som körts 16 000 mil i England har tappat 12,5 procent av sin batterikapacitet.
Det tycks betyda att den som köper en "normal begagnad bil" måste köpa nya batterier.

Och vad kostar det att köpa nya? När, var och hur ska de skrotas? Vilka miljöproblem kommer detta att skapa när hundratals miljarder batterier ska skrotas?

En el.bil ska laddas hemma varje natt. Då blir batteriet aldrig helt urladdat. Ett helt urladdat batteri tar lång tid att ladda upp! En total urladdning (motorstopp på vägen i skogen) ger en permanent skada på batteriet.
Batterier tål inte kyla, så på natten värms batteriet av laddaren (strömmen från laddstolpen). Att elbilen fungerar bra tycks kräva att man är hemma vid laddstolpen.
Citat:
"Moderna elbilar har värmeisolerade batterier som värms med värmeelement på vintern. Medan bilen laddas på natten värms batterierna med el från elnätet. Under färd värms batterierna med el från batteripacket självt."
Men vad händer när bilen är parkerad var som helst på vintern? Om du är på besök i ett annat samhälle så kanske det inte finns någon ledig el-parkering där.

Vad händer om du skulle vilja åka till kusinen i Skogby, som ligger 8 mil från närmaste el.stolpe, och du skulle vilja stanna en vecka för att åka skidor och det är -25C?
Bilens batterier kommer att använda sin laddning till att hålla sig varma dygnet runt och.... hur lång tid tar det då för batterierna att bli helt urladdade?
Det låter som att det finns en risk att du inte kan komma därifrån utan att ringa Vägassistans och batterierna kan också ha blivit förstörda av urladdningen och kylan. Mer om batterier.

Den grönaste metoden = odla bensin i avloppsvatten
Ett bättre miljöalternativ skulle vara att göra olja av alger. En algodling "slukar" CO2, eftersom alger och växter "äter" CO2. Alger är också bra mat, mkt proteiner. Nyttigt! Alla kan odla alger överallt.
Alger är alltså så lätt att skapa att de stora bolagen inte kan ta monopol på det.
Algodling är något så grönt och naturligt att man inte kan använda det för att ta kontroll över folk och därför är politikerna och storbankerna inte intresserade.

För att odla alger krävs bara att man har en behållare med vatten. Det går bra med både en stor bassäng och en petflaska. Man kan använda avloppsvatten till att odla dem för att sedan utvinna olja, som man gör bensin av.
Algodling innebär att man kopierar jordens egen metod att förvandla solljus till olja och proteiner.
Odlade alger, som man köper i hälsokostaffärer, heter Spirulina.Data visar att en hektar algodling ger lika mycket avkastning som fem hektar raps. Dessutom sker algodlingen på obrukbar mark. Läs mer om alger



tisdag 6 november 2018

Hur många ser ditt inlägg på fb?

Har du lagt märke till att det finns många vänner som du aldrig märker på Facebook (såvida du inte går till deras egna sidor, förstås. Där finns massor, som de lagt ut men som du aldrig sett.)
Det betyder också att det som du lägger ut inte alls når alla dina vänner (om du nu trodde det). Du kan ha tusen vänner men ditt inlägg kanske bara når ett tiotal personer. Om ingen av dessa klickar på ditt inlägg, ingen delar det och ingen kommenterar det... Vad händer då? Jo, Facebook anser att inlägget tydligen är tråkigt och ointressant, så de visar det inte för fler personer.

Hur många, som ska få se ditt inlägg, sköts av Facebooks berömda algoritmer, som många försöker "knäcka" för att bli mer sedda på Facebook. Det finns en massa knep, som somliga använder för att nå ut till fler på Facebook.

Det betyder att om man gör ett fint, högtravande, filosofiskt uttalande, som kanske är jättebra men som ingen klarar att kommentera, då kommer det inte att visas för så många, därför att det enligt Facebook är ointressant.

Om du däremot lägger ut en riktigt dum grej, som retar folk så att många svarar och skäller på dig - då kommer ditt inlägg att rankas högre och Facebook kommer att visa det för fler och fler.
Men maskinerna kan också läsa dina texter, så troligen är vissa ämnen "lågt rankade", vilket i praktiken kan betraktas som censur. Så det är inte alls säkert att man kan få fler "tittare" på sitt inlägg för att man skriver att man gillar Hitler så att alla börjar gräla.

Om du vill ha många gilla-klick så ska du lägga ut en gullig hund, en kattunge eller en solnedgång. Eller något vardagligt som du gjort.
Det är sådant som alla vågar att "klicka gilla på" eftersom det inte leder till att man blir kallad för rasist, nazist,  idiot, foliehatt eller dumbom. Det är ofarligt. Så bilden av Lilleman, katten eller tallriken med spaghetti har stor chans att gå vidare och visas för fler. Även om folk bara har klickat för att vara artiga och snälla och visa att de finns.

Att lägga ut en länk med stort innehåll är inte så bra. Om länken tar lång tid att ladda ner i en telefon (mer än 3 sekunder) så kommer folk inte att öppna den. Dvs om ingen öppnar din länk så kommer den heller inte att visas för några fler. Fb plockar bort den, men det kan du inte märka själv såvida du inte ringer till en massa kompisar och frågar. Du själv kan ju se att den ligger där, så... konstigt att ingen svarar.

Om du sätter dig ner och gör tio inlägg samtidigt (inom en kort stund) så kommer inte alla dessa att visas för dina kompisar, kanske inte ens för din bästis. Testa någon gång! Men snacka inte om testet i förväg för maskinerna lyssnar och läser och analyserar.

Låt säga att du lägger ut några länkar till långa artiklar och ber dina vänner att klicka gilla på dem. Du skriver det till dem på fb och de klickar snabbt på dina grejer. Vad händer då? Jo, du (eller dina inlägg) får minuspoäng och inläggen visas inte, därför att:
1. Facebook kan läsa vad du skrev och till och med en dator kunde nu se att det var fusk.
2. Facebook lägger märke till att de bara klickade gilla utan att ens ha läst artiklarna. Och det gills inte. Facebook vet hur lång tid som det normalt tar att läsa en sådan artikel.

Många försöker fuska sig till att få bli sedda av fler på Facebook, men det upptäcks och Facebooks algoritmer uppdateras för att kunna känna igen fusket.

Kortfattat kan man säga att fb väljer ut det som verkar bäst och sprider det snabbt till fler och fler medan man sållar bort det som är ointressant. Det är för att folk ska gilla att vara på fb. Där ska inte finnas en massa tråkiga nonsensgrejer.Men verkligheten tycker jag just är att där blir mer och mer nonsens, dvs sådant som är det enda som folk vågar klicka gilla på.
Det är på det sättet som något "goes viral". Det är inte bara för att folk delar det. Fb delar det också. (Om du har tusen vänner så har du kanske flera tusen "vänners vänner", som också har vänners vänner, som fb kan skicka ditt inlägg till.

En killes mamma klickade gilla på alla hans inlägg. Fb (algoritmerna) ansåg då att detta var något som hörde ihop med hans familj. Så de visade hans inlägg för alla hans familjemedlemmar, men knappast alls för andra. Så det som han lade ut för att det skulle ses av hans vänner inom business och hobby kom inte fram till dem. Inte förrän han blockerade sin mamma, då började hans affärer att fungera igen.

Du har 10-50 vänner som du är mest engagerad i och ofta kommunicerar med. Det är dessa vänner som får se dina inlägg. Men alla dessa får nog inte allt.

Så om man är intresserad av Facebook så ska man se till att man har en massa kontakt med de 20-50 vänner som man vill se inlägg från. Att göra så med flera tusen går inte. Om du rasar igenom vänlistan och klickar på allt och alla så genomskådas det av fb, så det blir ingen positiv effekt av det, snarare tvärtom. Algoritmerna ger dig nu minuspoäng.
Man får visst också minuspoäng av att ha en massa vänner som man aldrig har kontakt med, men jag förstår inte hur det fungerar. Det har med % att göra.






Men det är ju inte bara Fb som kör med den typen av algoritmer - det gör andra program också, i alla fall YouTube.Det är bara att testa så ser man:
Titta på en massa filmer om en enda åsikt eller om ett enda politiskt parti och dess vänner.
Efter ett tag så kommer det på Yt att se ut som om det är just bara denna enda åsikt som finns i världen. 99% av alla annonser kommer att handla om den. Att det kanske finns en motsatt åsikt märks inte så man tror att man "har hela världen med sig" i det man tycker.
Både Facebook och YouTube gör så att de favoriserar det som folk verkar gilla.
För att kunna upptäcka vad ett ämne eller en åsikt handlar om så är det bra att lyssna på YT-filmer där det finns en massa föredrag om det mesta, men att dessa filmer finns vet man inte förrän man själv kommit på idén att leta efter just det ämnet.




lördag 11 augusti 2018

Klimat och väder är inte samma sak

Blanda inte ihop begreppen klimat och väder 
när du diskuterar vår miljö. 

Photo Viveca Lammers

Det finns de, som påstår att "Climate Change" 
skulle orsakas av HAARP. 

Så hur är det nu egentligen med de här begreppen?

Tidigare pratade man om "Global Warming" och det var väl då mest Al Gore, som låg bakom den idén. Men sedan visade det sig att det inte fanns någon sådan plötslig temperaturökning, som kunde motsvara den ökade CO2-halten i luften.  Då sade man först att temperaturökningen "hade tagit en paus", men sedan ändrade man begreppet till "Climate Change" eftersom man då kunde räkna med att forskarna inte skulle säga att begreppet inte fanns. Det är ju klimatförändringar som forskarna studerar och då kan de ju inte säga att klimatförändringar inte finns. Så slapp man den omedelbara kritiken.

Vad man använder för ord har också betydelse när man skickar ut frågeformulär för att visa statistik över vad folk tror och anser. Om man ställer frågan: "Tror du på klimatförändring?" ("Do you believe in Climate Change?") så kommer alla forskare att svara "Ja" (frågeformulär kan man ju inte diskutera med) och sedan kan man använda det resultatet för att påstå att alla forskare håller med om att jorden nu håller på att värmas upp av våra utsläpp av CO2. Men forskarna håller inte alls med om detta, i alla fall inte de äldre experterna, pensionerade professorer, som vågar säga vad de vill för att de inte längre kan bli stoppade av uteblivna bidrag eller få sparken från jobbet för att de inte passar in i den politiska agenda som råder.

Den ökning av temperaturen som vi har är den uppgång, som vi haft sedan 1600-talet då det var väldigt kallt. Efter denna period med kyla och missväxt så har medeltemperaturen stigit, men vi har ännu inte kommit tillbaka till den värme som vi hade före denna period, som kallas för den lilla istiden. Detta är det som kallas för klimatet och om man vill se hur förändringar i klimatet ser ut så måste man titta på diagram, som spänner över tusentals år och helst hundratusentals år.

Journalister gillar ju att göra dramatiska rubriker 
om både klimat och väder.

Hjälp! Det blir varmare! Dödsvärmen kommer!
Nu skriver man att vi är på väg mot en katastrof för att det blir varmare. Då har man bara tittat på den lilla trend, som pågått sedan 1700-talet och så har man helt enkelt påstått att den kurvan är något onormalt, som vi har skapat och att den kommer att stiga hela tiden.

Hjälp! Det blir kallare! Dödskylan kommer!
På 70-talet gjorde man stora rubriker av den större kurvan, den som visar att det nu hela tiden blir kallare på jorden, och man skrev att det skulle bli katastrof på grund av den ökande kylan. Det skulle bli missväxt och miljarder människor skulle svälta ihjäl. Man skrev också att detta berodde på våra utsläpp av föroreningar, som ex. från förbränningen av fossila bränslen.

Båda dessa klimatkurvor är normala, den lilla, som visar att det på kort sikt blir varmare, och den stora, som visar att det på lång sikt blir kallare, och båda kan man göra dramatiska rubriker av!.

Det absolut farligaste för oss människor är naturligtvis om det blir en ny istid så att hela vår kultur blir täckt av ett lager med is och snö som aldrig smälter. Men det tillhör den stora kurvan och det betyder att en sådan förändring går väldigt långsamt. Det handlar om tiotusentals år.
Däremot så skulle en varmare period innebära att vi kom tillbaka till den temperatur, som vi hade under tidigare högkulturer.

När nu Climate Change kommer på tal, så finns också åsikten att "Det beror på HAARP!"
Men HAARP, vad de än gör, har knappast någon chans att påverka klimatet. Däremot så skulle de kunna påverka vädret och här har vi en skrift, som visar hur ett militärt intresse för vädret kan se ut.

In 2025, US aerospace forces can “own the weather” by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather-modification system to achieve military objectives
 http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

Att påverka vädret kallas för Weather Modification men metoderna kallas inte för konspiration - det är inte ens hemligt att man sysslar med det.
Men när man använder det inom det militära så borde det kunna finnas sådant, som är hemligt (och all krigsplanering kan väl kallas för konspiration eftersom man vänder sig mot en eventuell fiende, som helst inte bör veta vad man sysslar med) men själva grundidéerna om hur tekniken fungerar är inte hemliga.

Det kan låta ungefär så här:
A method and apparatus for altering at least one selected region which normally exists above the earth's surface. The region is excited by electron cyclotron resonance heating to thereby increase its charged particle density. In one embodiment, circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation is transmitted upward in a direction substantially parallel to and along a field line which extends through the region of plasma to be altered. The radiation is transmitted at a frequency which excites electron cyclotron resonance to heat and accelerate the charged particles. This increase in energy can cause ionization of neutral particles which are then absorbed as part of the region thereby increasing the charged particle density of the region.

Om man nu experimenterar med att påverka vädret (och även har bolag, som säljer sådana tjänster) så är det väl inte så konstigt om det resulterar i obalanser i vädret.
Att man påverkar den elektromagnetiska balansen i atmosfären kan väl också påverka vädret även om avsikten kanske var en annan, som ex. militära experiment.

Vad handlar HAARP om?
“The purpose of HAARP is to analyze the ionosphere and investigate the potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance and the research that is done at the HAARP facility allows the US military to perfect communications with its fleet of submarines by sending radio signals over long distances.”

Och...
Eastlund explained in his patent application that by influencing the ionosphere, methods of weather modification are possible.
“Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device.”

Men det betyder inte att man påverkar klimatet, som styrs av mycket större faktorer.

Men på samma sätt som vår miljö påverkas av klimatet så påverkas den ju också av vädret. Så effekten av vädermanipulation kan likna effekten av en klimatförändring. Men det är inte samma sak. Då kan det vara bättre att kalla det för miljöpåverkan eller miljöförändring.  Att vi förstör naturen på många olika sätt betyder också att vi gör så att regn och sol kan få värre konsekvenser än vad de skulle haft om jorden hade varit täckt av skogar. Vädret är "gjort för" att samarbeta med en riktig natur. Riktiga skogar tål både stekande sol, våldsamma skyfall och perioder av torka.

Men... om nu HAARP och Weather Modification-bolagen med sina experiment kan påverka vädret men inte klimatet - hur är det då med CO2? Då kan väl inte det heller påverka klimatet?
Nej, men det är ju precis det som de äldre experterna och professorerna säger att det inte kan. Klimatet styrs av så stora krafter att människan inte kan göra något åt detta.
Om det skulle bli en ny istid så kan vi inte motverka det genom att blåsa ut en massa CO2 för att höja temperaturen.

Men vad har politikerna för avsikt med att lansera begreppet Climate Change, med vilket man egentligen menar Global Warming? Är det ekonomiskt, att man vill stödja en viss typ av industri, som solkraft och vindkraft? 

Men om man nu är så rädd för en eventuell uppvärmning av atmosfären / jorden... varför har man då satt upp stora anläggningar som sysslar med ionospheric heating? Det finns en i Tromsö.


The Tromsø Heating facility is located at Ramfjordmoen close to the Tromsø Incoherent Scatter Radar facility. The Heating facility consists of 12 transmitters of 100 kW CW power, which can be modulated, and three antenna arrays covering the frequency range 3.85 MHz to 8 MHz. The Heating facility includes a transmitter hall and an operations, office and accommodation building, which are owned by EISCAT. The land is provided by the University of Tromsø. The buildings belong to EISCAT.

Kan det möjligen vara så att en sådan anläggning hettar upp atmosfären och så vill man att detta (som troligen går att mäta) ska skyllas på CO2 därför att då kan man göra business av det? Eller hettar man upp atmosfären för att kunna ha en orsak till att dra igång en anti-CO2-kampanj???

CO2 är egentligen en gas som bidrar till ökad växtlighet och det bästa vore väl om den fick ha sin naturliga funktion = man kunde plantera nya skogar över hela jorden i stället.

Vad händer om CO2-idén tar makten helt? Jo, då börjar man antagligen att tillverka pumpar, som ska suga upp överflödig CO2 från luften och denna kan man då senare sälja på flaska till alla dem, som har växthus. Om detta blir vanligt över hela jorden så har vi en ny lönande industri, en pumpfabrikation.
Vad blir resultatet då? Om man skulle lyckas med att sänka CO2-halten (det är ju det man vill) så skulle naturliga skogar och odlingar på jorden få en försämrad chans att växa, medan all odling i växthus skulle gynnas. Men växthusens ägare skulle bli tvungna att köpa CO2 för att kunna odla. Smart affärsidé (om den lyckas).

Om CO2-halten skulle minska (och skogarna växa sämre) så skulle vår luft också komma att innehålla mindre syre. Vill det sig riktigt illa så skulle många kunna komma att bli beroende av att köpa syrgas på flaska för att kunna andas.
Det går ju inte att undgå att se vilken bra affärsidé detta kan vara. Man tar makten över luften, som man då delar upp i två kemiska komponenter, som båda går att sälja..

Det är i linje med att Monsanto jobbar på att hela världen ska vara beroende av deras frön och att medicinbolagen försöker förbjuda naturläkemedel och att andra bolag (Nestlé?) vill ha monopol på vattnet (allt dricksvatten ska säljas på flaska). Sådant kan nog kallas för konspirationsteorier, men egentligen så är det väl bara vanlig affärsverksamhet.  Att man på detta sätt krigar om vattnet kanske inte är något som svenskarna är så medvetna om eftersom vi är vana vid att ha rent vatten i våra kranar. Vi till och med kan duscha i dricksvatten, men så är det inte i alla länder. I vissa länder är det öppet krig om vattnet. 

De, som kontrollerar mat, luft, vatten och mediciner kontrollerar också människorna helt. Utan mat och vatten (och syre!) så blir det inga protester och demonstrationer. Och den som inte är lydig kan på avstånd få sitt betalkort avstängt.


Hur som helst så är det bra att kunna skilja på klimat och väder!


Klimatet är det genomsnittliga under en lång tid och det visar man på kurvor, som visar långsamma variationer under väldigt långa perioder.
Ibland är det högkultur och ibland är det istid.

Om man pratar om Climate Change så är det den här typen av diagram som gäller.

Här är en bild av klimatet:



Vädret är det man ser på väderkartan i TV och det handlar om variationer som kan vara på så litet som några timmar: regn, åska, solsken, molnigt eller klart väder osv.
Om man pratar om Weather Manipulation så är det den här typen av kartor som gäller.

Här är en bild av vädret:



fredag 10 augusti 2018

Climate Change

A survey of relevant criticism of mainstream belief regarding the climate.

Illustration by Viveca Lammers

The view presented by politicians and mainstream journalists is that the atmospheric carbon dioxide level is the dominant factor that rules the global temperature.

The mainstream statement is this: 
Climate change is happening!
Our Earth is warming. Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.5°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 0.5 to 8.6°F over the next hundred years.
Global warming refers to the recent and ongoing rise in global average temperature near Earth's surface. It is caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
President Obama's EPA ruled in 2009 that CO2 was a pollutant that needed to be regulated.
Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20thcentury. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.
A report published today has determined what climate scientists already suspected: 2014 was the warmest year since such records have been kept.
The baseline temperature in the NOAA report, for example, is the average temperature of all the years from 1981 through 2014. The report compares the global average temperature from each year from the 1880s through last year. While there is a lot of variation looking at the whole set of data, it's blatantly obvious how quickly temperatures have risen in recent decades.
Antarctic Ice Sheet is melting which will cause a disaster.

............................

Climate change is happening!
Nobody denies that! But it is a nonsensical statement as we know that the climate is changing all the time and it always has.
The exact formulation of the words in a statement is of importance as one sentence can be used in a questionnaire for the purposes of a survey or statistical study and this one is a precise statement that nobody can deny.

Our Earth is warming. Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.5°F over the past century, 
This is true and nobody denies it. Temperature is always swinging up and down and has always done so. It is natural and it follows rather well known cycles.
Around 1600 temperature was very low (Little Ice Age) and we are still on the way up from this cold downperiod. The temperature curve is quite normal.

and is projected to rise another 0.5 to 8.6°F over the next hundred years.
Projected by whom? Meteorologists usually say that it is not possible to say in advance if temperature will rise or fall. Hot and cold periods are much governed by the amount of sunspots and compared to the effects of the sun the atmospheric CO2-level has almost nothing to do with global temperature. The effect exists but it is too small to be of any importance. They also say that warming cause rise of CO2 and not the opposite.
There is reason to believe that this projection is made by politicians and other people in power, who have their own interests in keeping this alarmistic belief alive and the reason for that is political and economical.

Global warming refers to the recent and ongoing rise in global average temperature near Earth's surface.
Yes, nobody denies that.

It is caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The scientists do not agree. The present rise in temperature (after 1600) is following natural cycles as we are now recovering from a very cold period. We have not yet come back to the higher temperature that we had during the earlier part of the Medieval Age (when the Vikings colonized Greenland).

The mainstream agenda is usually illustrated with a diagram that starts around 1800. They seam to mean that we do not know about temperature before this time because there were no measurements made earlier.
It might be true that we did not measure temperature earlier, but it is not true that we know nothing about earlier global temperature swings. Science has many methods of tracing global temperature millions of years back in time. But the existence of these curves is not much mentioned by the climate alarmists. Why not? Probably because it would quickly ruin their theory as people would begin to question it.

The constant temperature-rise from 1700 till now is similar to the temperature from 4 am to 1 pm. Both give a picture that shows a constant temperature rise. We know that the daily temperature rise is always followed by a temperature fall in the evening and night. It follows the same curve, which is caused by the regular nearness to the sun. 
The global temperature follows many different curves so the picture becomes more complicated and this makes it impossible to provide an exact forecast. 
If we have never seen the long term curves of the global temperature we don´t know that these swings exist. We might believe that earth has always been on an avarage, "normal" temperature, which is now suddenly changed (by us) and only goes up (and will continue to do so till we lower the CO2-level.) 

President Obama's EPA ruled in 2009 that CO2 was a pollutant that needed to be regulated.CO2 is not a pollutant as it is what nature "inhales" to produce oxygene for us and the mammals. We breathe out what the forests breathe in and the forests breathe out what we breathe in.
If the CO2 in the air is higher we can blame it on human activity. Yes, but why not blame it on the deforestation of earth? Humans are taking away all the forests that should use this CO2 for growing and producing oxygene. We could reverse this by planting new forests all over the globe and also by creating "green energy" by cultivating algea, which consume CO2. From algae we can make both food (proteins and minerals) and fuel (oil and gasoline) so a global focus on algae could maybe solve the problems of both CO2, energy and food. More about algae.
 

Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. 
Scientists seem to agree upon this. Our CO2 production ads to the warming. But if you show this on a curve of millions of years we can see that the impact of CO2 is not even seen on the curve. So when they show the effect of human emission of CO2 the map is a blow-up that shows only a detail so the importance of the CO2 is also blown up.

Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20thcentury.
Scientists agree that some of the warming might be caused by humans, but not "most observed" warming.

Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.
Scientists do not agree upon this.
They usually say that the natural causes are far more potent than any human activity and we have no chance to have any important impact on it. So human activity is not the "dominant cause".

Sometimes we are closer to the sun and sometimes the distance to the sun is longer. We have day / night. We have summer / winter. We also have a changing distance between earth and sun due to the fact that we are going around the sun in an ellips and not a circle. We cannot change that.
Our sun is also producing warm and cold periods on earth with the changing of the solar activity as the amount of sun-spots change the temperature. Around 1600  it was extremely cold, but after 1700 the temperature has been rising again, but it is not yet back to the warmth that we had when Erik Röde settled on Greenland, which at that time was a place where you could have sheep and cattle and grow rye and barley.

A report published today has determined what climate scientists already suspected: 2014 was the warmest year since such records have been kept.
Yes, of course, if you only look at the temperature on a short period, when we are on the rise from a colder period, every year can be the warmest since the records began.

The baseline temperature in the NOAA report, for example, is the average temperature of all the years from 1981 through 2014. The report compares the global average temperature from each year from the 1880s through last year. While there is a lot of variation looking at the whole set of data, it's blatantly obvious how quickly temperatures have risen in recent decades.
Yes, it looks alarming, but only if you show such a small piece of the curve, which, when made bigger, is not at all unusual. It is just a temperature increas that has been repeated many times before in a relatively known pattern.

Antarctic Ice Sheet is melting which will cause a disaster.
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

The view of the sceptics is that IPCC is not driven by science but by politics
There are a mass of studies that show it was warmer in medieval times, and that it was global. Yet there is a disinformation campaign out there by the IPCC and others to promote the idea that it was a local phenomenon. More

The typical representant for the sceptics seems to be an older professor emeritus of meteorology,  climatology (or similar), who has no longer a need to fit in to get payed.

The grand old guru of the opposite side is Al Gore, politician and businessman, mostly famous for his film about global warming An Inconvenient Truth.

But.... schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's film about global warming. The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.
Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'. (They had found many statements that were wrong in the film. Al Gore is making emotional claims that are not backed up by science)  MailOnline 2007 

He is a spokesman for the clean energy economy: Al Gore laid down a green gauntlet Thursday, challenging the nation to produce all our electricity from renewable sources, such as wind mills and solar panels - and do it within a decade.

Wind is not consumed when we draw energy from it´s movement. It will continue to blow, but the huge wind turbines are not made of "renewable sources" and they also cause pollution and other problems for nature, animals and humans. After around 15-20 years a big wind turbine is old and has to be taken down. That is a big and heavy industry, which also destroys the life in the forests where they are put up.

The debate is like a war between two religions, where both sides have their gurus, who are supported by masses of disciples, and each side accuses the other side of industry funded antiscientific desinformation campaigns.
There is reason to believe that the mainstream idea, which is promoted by our politicians and big media, is the side that is mostly funded and sponsored by industrial interests, as it is the side that is controlling the big money, i.e. has the power. It started with a 30 million USD fund from George Soros to Al Gore. (If Al Gore is favored by Soros he might still have a chance to become the next president of the USA!)

In 1974 the media wrote about the climate change and the expected disaster was billions of people starving because of the climate getting colder, not only from natural trend but also from human pollution as fossil-fuel burning.. 
That the globe is getting cooler is also what many scientists say today as that is what we can see on the very long trend (thousands of years).


The text says:
"For the long run, there is mounting evidence of a world-wide cooling trend. The average temperature of the world as a whole has dropped by one-third to one-half a degree Centigrade in the last 30 years. "The decline of prevailing temperatures since about 1945 appear to be the longest-continued downward trend since temperature records began," says Professor Hubert Lamb of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain."

"There is a very important climate change going on right now", asserts Dr. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin.

"Bryson is the leading spokesman for the view that man-made atmospheric pollution has changed the global climate. Fossil-fuel burning, mechanized agricultural operations, accidental forest fires, and the primitive slash-and-burn land-clearing method still widely practiced in the tropics have increased the amount of dust in the atmosphere, Bryson says, causing more sunlight to be reflected into space and lowering earth´s temperature."

Reid Bryson (7 June 1920 – 11 June 2008) was an American atmospheric scientist, geologist and meteorologist.
He was a towering figure in climatology and interdisciplinary studies of climate, people and the environment, and the founder of the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s meteorology department and Center for Climatic Research, and the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies.
In 1948, he founded the university’s meteorology department, now known as the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.

Here is an inteview with him.

Prof. Reid Bryson 
Founder of
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.

..........................

Maps and diagrams
Start with the diagrams because they form the basic for any discussion. Everyone refers to "science" and these diagrams are the base for what science is saying.


Peter Temple
Market Analyst and Business Cycles Expert


Who says what?
Richard Lindzen
Prof. Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences 


Professor Carl-Otto Weiss 
Former President of the 
National Meteorology Institute
Braunschweig, Germany,
Schiller Institute


Lord Monckton 
Politician
describes the political background


co-founder of Greenpeace