Celebrity Climate Alarmists

Sir David Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE FRS FLS FZS FSA FRSGS

What are all those post-nominal letters and what do they mean? Well, for starters I can tell you that they're not qualifications, they're honours that've been awarded to him. He's a very decorated fellow, some say the most travelled man in the world, held in high esteem by Britishers as their very own living icon.

Bravo, I won't argue wih any of that because I have respect for anyone who is diligent and successful. As for his qualifications, which are mysteriously absent from the letters following his name....

He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Natural Sciences, majoring in Geology and Zoology at Cambridge. That's it.

In the early 60s he started a post-graduate degree in Social Anthropology at London Uni but left to return to the BBC (no-one really knows how far he got with it but I think it was a year or two). He has amassed some 32 Honorary Degrees, all without attending universities or anything, bestowed on him from various institutions for his extraordinary work in TV, mostly documentaries (as if we didn't all know already!).

So how does he get to lecture us all on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Like Arnie Schwarzenegger and Leonardo de Caprio, prominent actors who get plenty of air time on climate change because they're celebrities, apparently you don't need a university degree in Climatology if you're famous.

None of the following celebrities are qualified in the science of Climatology:

Al Gore has a BA in Law. Brian Cox is an Astrophysicist. Tim Flannery - Paleontology. David Suzuki - Zoology, Genetics. Name a famous Climate Change Activist and you'll be hard-pressed to find a single Climatologist amongst them. Yep, you'll find some glaciologists, environmentalists, atmospheric physicists (close), biologists, journalists, more politicians, geographers and zoologists and even more celebrities. (Not that having a University Degree means everything - there are plenty of highly qualified idiots out there, ha ha!) What does all this mean?

The religion of Climate Change is a political movement. Most commercially owned mainstream media is owned by the capitalist Left, and we have gotten so used to it that we think that the news we watch is Centrist and unbiased. Whether we realise it or not, much of what we accept as normal owes its roots to the Hippie Era of free sex, drugs and dropping out, the agenda of Marxist Culturalism designed to tear down the fabric of Western Society by destroying Judeo-Christian values.

Sound like a load of gobbledygook?

Conspiracy Theory #45: Marxist Culturalism invented the concept of politcal correctness. Some really good things came out of it. Speaking of which, for druggies, society became more tolerant of those who were 'out of it'. It put an end to racial segregation, apartheid, etc and although it made discrimination illegal it hasn't eradicated racism and probably never will (it could be a survival gene). It promoted Feminism and made great strides in achieving Equal Pay etc, but will never truly eradicate sexism whether it be mysogeny or misandry (womanhaters/manhaters). As far as homosexuality etc goes, although their input into human survival is a disputed area, hardly anyone wants to see the Sexual Freedom campaign continue unbridled, lest it degrades into orgiastic rape, bestiality, paedophilia, necrophilia and other sexual perversions. Am I allowed to say that, perversions? No, that would be politically incorrect. Perhaps the right term is "expression" or "adventure". Whatever. I still think it's depraved. But that's just my opinion.

Ok, rant over, back on topic. I could barely stand to watch his docos for more that maybe a quarter of an hour, partly because of his stuffy accent but mainly because of his Darwinian commentary. Starting out as an Atheist, he later admitted to getting closer to admitting that there COULD be 'intelligent design' and therefore some God behind it - but remains an Agnostic and sticks to the theory of evolution even though it lacks proof and remains a theory.

As a believer in the person known as the Supreme Being, God, the Almighty etc naturally I am a Creationist (those Lefties love labelling, don't they!) and find it quite absurd, the idea that chemicals mixed together and life spontaneously arose; let alone that the Universe similarly arose from nothing with the Big Bang. To me, these are attempts by atheistic scientists to 'explain away'  something that only God can do; and substitute an "accident", a "freak of nature"(when there was none to begin with?) or some "unknown factor". Yep, they got the last part right, the unknown factor is Bruce Almighty. Whoops, sorry, I meant God.

Anyway.... this last evangelical tirade of his is the last straw for me. I have lost all admiration for him. To me, he is another Darwin, a Hawking, another Plato (who said the Earth was the centre of the universe, not the Sun). I think Sir David now looks like a doddering old man, a gibbering fool, a feeble shill, paid off by the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change). These celebrities are recruited as puppets to promote the Climate Religion cause. And his sermon was straight out of the Big Book. It used the same guilt trips and threats of punishment that Biblebashers enjoy. If you've read this far you probably agree with me. If so (or if not) please leave a comment and let me know by giving me your feedback either way. 

ॐ हरे कृष्ण ॐ



(I imagine most if not all of you are now thinking "well who the fuck are you Sam? You didn't go to uni, you failed school and are not an academic. Well, in my defence... If I had initials after my name, say, Sam Treloar WTF, IDK, LOL, FFS, ROFLMAO - would that be more impressive or convincing? Post-nominal letters can be deceptive. We place far too much emphasis on "experts". When I read the work of an intellectual writing on a topic, I scrutinise their style of delivery, vocabulary, grammar, and especially parsing of sentence structure in order to ascertain if the left and right brain activity is balanced and how integrated the two halves' thinking is. One can often tell poorly-thought out illogical rants by the disconnected phrasing or the non-stop continuous raving.)



(and... You should never have to re-read a sentence unless a particularly complex principle is being explained. If so, you can take it for granted that their imagination is working overtime and their left brain (the critical part) has shut down. In contrast, one can tell when the author's right brain is dormant if the same words are being used repetitively (or over and over, repeatedly, continuously, too often; you get my point) showing a lack of creativity, losing the reader's interest. A way to tell an overactive right brain is the overuse of flowery language, unnecessarily descriptive ramble and extraneous cogitation like I am illustrating now.)

[Author's note: I do so many edits and extenxive proofreading of my work that I lose count. Methinks both sides of my brain have a mind of their own ha ha] 

Political democracy

We like to think there is sanity in choice.

This is how we define ourselves, determine our future - as if we have some sort of control over our destiny.

When we roll up to the electoral polling booth to cross our name off, how much does our vote actually count? Do we really have a say?

I am so sick of hearing Americans complain about their President. After all, you voted him in, only to now protest. Are you mad? Dysfunctional yankees, I say!

Even worse is the mongering of unelected Pry Ministers, shoved up in the ranks by the Old Boys Club cohorts, insider politicking at its worst. We didn't vote for these emerging ghosts, yet they appear out of nowhere and seize the throne.

How dare they! We didn't elect them! Rack off, Scott Morrison! And you too, Peter Dutton! You are like dog droppings on the footpath, picked up unwittingly on the passing pedestrian shoe, previous unknowns dredged from the muck to represent the new face of "The Party".

Theatrics, orchestrastions, stage presentations.

Program the children; thus control the future

Thousands of truant Aussie schoolkids protesting about the Australian Govt's lack of action on misanthropic (look it up) climate change prove that brainwashing (the education system) is very successful. Like sponges they soak up the bombarding propaganda, rattling off in rote fashion everything they have been programmed with. Children lack the worldly experience to make informed expert decisions. Their behaviour is, however, a great way to measure how well the process of indoctrinating them is 'progressing'.

Some facts. First there were meteorologists, a fancy word to describe 'experts' in the 'science of weather'. Not really an exact science (like say, mathematics or physics) there was a lot of guessing and a lot of contradicting theories because nobody really understood weather enough to be able to predict it. That remains true to this day. Still, they fancy themselves as experts despite not fully understanding their area of expertise. I don't either, but I don't claim to be an expert - just an informed skeptic.

Then came climatologists. A distinction was made between short-term weather and long-term climate. Meteorologists traditionally have looked at the present reality and used this to speculate about the future - yet climate is the history of past trends.

Out of nowhere, in the 70s, 80s and 90s 'climatologists' invented themselves and decided they were experts in predicting the future (which they're not). This is not science, this is guesswork. They hardly ever get it right, unlike meteorologists that have become pretty good at forecasting the next 24 hours of weather - even longer, up to 7 or 10 days or more.

Out of the 100 or so official 'Climate Models' proposed in the burgeoning computer era of fashionable 'Global Warming' in the 90s, nearly (practically) all of them were wrong. Two underestimated the amount of temperature increase and the other 98% exaggerated 'global warming) by as much as 50, 100, 200% compared to the real figures we have now, 20 years later. Clearly their models were wrong and not at all 'scientific'. Science is not based on such terrible statistical failure rates. Thank heavens.

In science, real sciences, there are Laws and there are Theories. There is no such thing as concensus in science. Things are either proven and are accepted as Laws or they're not and remain mere Theories. Concensus is a word coined by non-scientists who want to advance a hypothetical theory... even if it is an unproven fact. They can do this because, like street gangs, the biggest bunch of thugs rules.

(for instance, take the Theory of Evolution, based on 'abiogenesis' – the supposed spontaneous arising of life forms from a lifeless mixture of chemicals. Like the Missing Link, abiogenesis has never been proven or even replicated and remains nothing more than a figment of evolutionists' imaginanation – because it is necessary to account for their theory in the absence of proof. Like I said, there are Laws and there are Theories.)

Did you know that the Greenhouse Gas Effect has never been demonstrated? Ever? In reality? It is merely a theory. Well, yes it has been established in closed systems such as GREENHOUSES but never in an indefinitely variable open system such as the Earth's amosphere. The GGE deals specifically with the open system theory and remains that, a theory - unproven.

In an actual greenhouse, CO₂ has very little impact, the driving force being water vapour (humidity) which traps kinetic energy, thereby pushing up temperatures through the heating action of sunlight. Carbon dioxide actually plays a healthy role in vegetation growth which thrives in higher concentrations of CO₂!

Farmers use carbon dioxide generators to pump CO₂ into commercial greenhouses to increase yield and therefore profits. It is not a poisonous gas, it is not toxic, in fact without it nothing would grow! Unlike humans who breathe in oxygen and expire CO₂, plants do the opposite. No CO₂, no plant life, simple as that. It is a wholly symbiotic relationship between animal and plant life that enables both to exist, completely dependent on each other for survival.

Also it is worth noting that in the entire history of Planet Earth, current CO₂ percentages (3-400 parts per MILLION)  are at historically low levels. Note also that most of the other planets and satellites in our Solar System are currently experiencing warming events - nothing to do with fossil fuels or CO₂ and all about Sunspot activity and orbital fluctuations. That, my friends, is real science - not the hypothetical hit-and-miss guesswork of Climatology.

Maurice Strong started it all.

Look that up,"Maurice Strong, climate fraud" (you may prefer to substitute 'activist' for fraud, crook, villian, etc... same result).

Musical Temperament

What was used before Equal Temperament (ET) was "invented" in modern times? The short answer is Just Intonation (JI), Meantone (MT) and Well-temperaments (WT) and immediately preceding ET, Quasi-equal Temperament (QET). In the diagram below JI is left out as it mainly pre-dates the formulation of what we now know as Western music.

Put simply:—
JI has mostly pure chords in the Tonic key only;
Meantone has pure major thirds but narrow fifths (slightly flat) in up to 8 keys; and
WT has a pure major third in the Tonic key only, and varying major thirds and narrow fifths in nearly all keys - except the notorious Wolf tone in one last 5th, the dumping ground resulting from all those adjusted 3rds and 5ths.

Apart from the ancient Greek Pythagorean Temperament (which is quite horrible imho) the standard "refined" tuning of medieval times was Just Intonation (JI, which incidentally is the traditional Indian tuning - the equivalent of Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale) which had pure beatless thirds, fourths, fifths, etc - in fact all the intervals were pure - which restricted the ability to modulate to other keys. Chords with JI with pure thirds and Perfect Fifths are I, iii, IV, V & iv (and... i, ♭II, ♭III, iv, ♭V & v! )
[#This explains why early music had few key changes - not because they were primitive or inarticulate, but simply because the more you strayed from the tonal centre of the tonic, the worse it got. Chords and melody were naturally sweet and there was little need to change key anyway (most composers and musicians later earnt their livelihoods courtesy of Roman Catholic Church, why everyone composed religious spiritual works in order to put food on the table).]

Next, the earliest great-sounding temperament that allowed a fair bit of modulation was 1/4 comma Meantone, first documented and formulated in the early 1500's by Pietro Aaron (he didn't invent it, he just worked out how to write out the formulae). It has 8 keys with pure beatless major thirds and 4 which are more or less unplayable. This is what I use 80% of the time. When C is the root it has pure major 3rds and slightly narrow 5ths in Eb, Bb, F, C, G, D, A, & E. There has to be some "rob Peter to pay Paul" going on to get the pure thirds, and this was acheived by narrowing the fifths by about 5 or 6 cents. (By contrast, ET has near-perfect fifths of 2 cents sharp, 702 instead of 700, but woefully sharp thirds of around 14-17 cents.) Picture a sitar and how the movable frets are staggered, to get an idea of how everything has to add up correctly at the twelfth fret to get the octave right.

The next major development was the invention of the Well-temperaments, beginning with Werckmeister (this is most probably what Bach and many of the early Masters used) and later Kirnberger (my next favourite after 1/4-comma meantone). These temperaments both have pure beatless thirds and slightly narrowed beating fifths in the root key making the Tonic key extremely nice on the ear - but with less and less refinement of keys as one progresses through the cycle of fifths. For example, in C major, the E is tuned to ≈386 cents instead of the 400 cents in ET and the fifth narrowed from 700 to around 695. In other keys eg F and G the third won't be pure (it is maybe 7 or cents flatter than the Equal Tempered third) but still sounds fairly sweet. This allows freer modulation into the dark-sounding keys of MT without the harshness, at the expense of losing the pure 3rds of 7 other keys as previous.

People who are only used to ET have become so accustomed to the beating of major thirds that when they first hear a beatless pure third they may complain that it is "lifeless" because it isn't beating!

Anyway, more Well-temperaments followed - Vallotti, Young, Neidhardt, etc - all heading closer and closer to quasi-equal and further away from pure tuning. The theory is that the humans somehow or other tolerate major thirds that are 14 cents sharp in ET, and after prolonged exposure it becomes "normal". Likewise in Meantone and Well-temperaments, the 5 or 6 cents narrowed fifths are also tolerated by the ear (humans can't distinguish b/n intervals played separately that are 2 or 3 cents apart. Played simultaneously though, the human ear detects the beating).

The question of importance arises therefore, which is really just a matter of personal preference, as to whether the pure thirds and narrow fifths of MT and WT are "better" than the near-perfect fifths and extremely sharp major thirds of ET. It depends largely on the type of music being played and the kind of sound sought.

Anyway, back to Period temperaments... With the revolution of the Romantic era came new types of temperaments, new forms of expression, and the breakaway from organised religion to Nature worship in litersture, art and music. It is my judgement that religious music sounds most whole and spiritual in pure tuning systems, and the shift toward sensuality and hedonism is why the old tunings were replaced. Everyone wanted to get funky and the pious catherdral vibe just didn't cut it. Imho that is why and what brought about the change to ET (equal temperament) in order to facilitate the modern trend. Out with Creationism and God, in with Science, Darwin's theory of Evolution, and Industrialisation. Modulation is an ET thing, a hallmark of music since the start of the 20th century.

Before Equal Temperament was scientifically and mathematically perfected in the early 1900's, Quasi-equal Temperament, from roughly 1850 onwards, was an approximation that came close, but some of the flat and sharp keys were a bit out. Even to this day not a lot of music is written in, say, Ab minor or Db major, and this is where they plonked the more dissonant intervals, out of the way so they could be avoided in the course of normal play (perhaps you have heard of the Wolf tone of earlier temperaments, which was a particularly out of tune fifth between Db-Ab-Eb). However, the early Baroque and later Classical period of the Masters - Bach, Strauss, Beethoven, Mozart preceded this by up to a century or more.

[Diagram modified from rollingball.com website, which has a lot of detailed info on various temperaments. A strange omission is Strauss 1825-99 (which I have drawn in). Generally the modern era composers all use ET.]

Popular Well-temperaments (as they were called, to differentiate them from the earlier Meantone systems - more on that later) of those eras were Werckmeister and later Kirnberger, of which both had at least three differently tuned versions.

The earlier Meantone temperaments were based on the comma or fractions thereof (without going too far into it, if you tuned a zillion stringed guitar using harmonics at the 5th and 7th frets by the time you got from C to G, D, A, E, B, F#, C#, G#, D#, A#, E#, and finally back to the "C" at B#, that C would be about a quarter of a semitone too high. That is one kind of comma in music).

They came up with 1/4-comma Meantone first, to stretch and shrink various notes to fit within the octave and play reasonably well in tune. Various intellectuals invented 1/5-comma, 1/6-comma, 1/7-comma etc tunings in an attempt to free up the scope of modulations to unrelated keys. The comma was distributed between the notes, making the important ones greatly playable and dumping the remaining trash in unrelated Z-demolished rarely-visited keys.

To this day piano tuners have to be able to count up to seven beats per second for certain notes when tuning. In the old days they tuned more to REDUCE the amount of beating until W. B. White finally figured out the correct beating count for all 88 notes of the piano in 1917. Remember, there were no stroboscopes or tuners in those days! The only way to tune a piano was to count the beating between intervals, eg from middle C, the E above might beat 3 per second but the E below at 2 beats only (just guessing, I'm not up with the correct rates as I'm not a piano tuner!). They had to be able to count up to seven beats per second to tune intervals higher up in the register (lower notes beat a lot slower).

How they did it is a bit of a lost art. An expert piano tuner trying to faithfully reproduce period tunings has to abandon their normal ET regime to tune pure major thirds and narrow fifths. Adding the Railsback curve to that makes it all the more complicated, but a competent piano tuner doesn't have a problem with any of this. It is their art. 

One Little Way to Stop Depression

I once learnt a neat trick to help with depression, called a "visualisation tool".  I think I learnt it from the Enneagram but I'm not exactly sure where I got it from. Not that it matters... what matters is that it worked for ME!

I have been able to break myself out of a rut ever since. Sure it won't work for everyone, especially those who are clinically depressed, perhaps on meds or suffering from manic depression. But for those of you like myself whose woes stem largely from negative self-talk, this helps. Not just helps - cures it. It goes like this.

Life is full of disappointments. Not everything goes smoothly. Things don't always work out. Ok, got that.

This happens to all of us, whether you are a saint or an axe murderer, or most likely somewhere in between. It's how we deal with it that makes us different as healthy individuals.

If you suffer from negative self-talk fixation these 'little things' can spiral downward, until they end up totally out of proportion. The trick is to cut it off, nip it in the bud, stem the flow, etc before you get into a down mood, aka "the blues". At this point it is worth noting that repetitive fixation does not achieve anything (aka 'going around in circles'). It is totally unproductive.

As soon as you recognise the familiar voices - "I'm no good", "I'm a failure", "I always muck things up" you have identified the process. If you can do that, then this visualisation tool will do the trick to stop it from getting worse. If you can't discern when your own negative self-talk kicks in, then I'm afraid this won't help you. Off to therapy for you. Sorry.

Here it is in a nutshell.

Most of us are stationary, often sitting or lying, when the negative self-talk first kicks in. This is one reason why activity, including sport, work, even mundane chores is recommended as therapy and is preferable to wallowing in our mires - because actions engage the brain and circumvent the inner thought processes. So we sit there, or lie there, echoing our deriding sentences criticising our ineptness and patheticness.

Now, imagine a switch on the opposite wall.

This is the magic switch that turns off depression. You have to believe or at least imagine that it works. All you have to do is get up and go over to the wall, visualise the switch and flick it off. Don't make the mistake of sitting there and imagining that you're doing it — get up and do it!

It doesn't sound like much, does it? What you have done is stopped your thought processes, halted them in their tracks and shut down the broken record of your life commentary that is playing. NSTF over.

Sounds too easy? Well here's why it works.

Most of the self-perpetuating misery is a bad habit that, yes, plays like a broken record. As long as you're sitting there with your head in your hands going over and over with reciting your inadequacies and personal downfalls, you are only reinforcing the negative thoughts and driving the depression further and further downward.

By getting up out of the seat we are breaking the cycle, interrupting the thoughts, halting the downward spiral. Visualising the switch gives us a goal, and flicking this switch is acknowledging that we have control. It is incredibly empowering to discover that most of our suffering is self-inflicted - where we repeat messages learnt as children as we navigate through life and learn and internalise correct behaviours.

Unfortunately we also internalise the parental chastisement and forget to turn it off once we have learnt how to succeed (behave). If you're anything like me and you don't need anyone else to remind us of our shortcomings, you may well be a candidate for using the Imaginary Switch Trick. Try it. What have you got to lose? (apart from looking like a bit of an idiot walking over to walls and seemingly stroking them upwards)

To cap it off... it is perfectly normal to react to bad news and events with sadness, dismay, shock, horror etc. To not do so would be unhealthy. But to wallow in self pity, replaying a crisis over and over is unproductive and downright pathological. The healthy approach is to identify the problem, get help if necessary, decide on a solution and implement it.

Don't wallow in Negative Self-Talk. Flick that switch!