A Japanese Joke

How do you tell a Japanese prostitute?

She’s the one in the fishnets.

Another Japanese joke is the Bank of Japan has pumped 33 trillion yen into the financial system to do various financial things. That is £259 billion.

So why is my supermarket collecting loose change for Japanese children. Why is the media full of images of people without food, water or shelter. Why are desperate people wandering on their own looking for the bodies of their loved ones? Why is fuel and heating running out? Why?

Perhaps if they had only put £258 billion into the financial markets, and put £1 billion looking after their people. Perhaps it may have made some slight difference.

Again this insane world has done it again. Why is the imaginary money of the bankers more important than life?

What About the Next One Mr Hawking?

The news today is covering Stephen Hawking saying God did not create the Universe, check out William Crawley’s blog at the BBC.

Now to me the question is, who will create the next one?  Most likely us, or some evolutionary descendent of ours. As long as we survive, which isn’t looking too hopeful at the moment if we don’t stop the collapse of the Earth’s ecological life support systems.

Creating a Universe, a proper big one, is an important aspect of sustainable planetary management. To have a vision of creating a new Universe, also creates an attractor point in the future on which to put the trajectory of global development on.

You can’t create a Universe if you can’t manage a planet first. This is what the philosophy behind our entry into the competition to run the Millennium Dome was about, a centre of excellence in global environmental management. This would have the ‘critical mass’ to divert the current headlong dash of society towards chaos and extinction.

To find out more about applied planetary engineering visit our background site where the outline proposal to run the Millennium Dome was placed. For a quick intro try Jamais Cascio’s  excellent site, Open the Future, where some of our comments have been placed. Jamais then contacted us to find our views on the ethics of Geoengineering.

The beauty of understanding how to create a new Universe, is that apart from it involves us managing our planet more sustainably, it leads to the technologies of time travel and inter galactic flight. Brilliant.

May Celtic Lion recommend an interest in Omega Points to relate Hawking’s work with modern planetary development and engineering strategy.

What a Change in the Weather

Well it has been a rapid day on climate in the press. These are the press I have been reading and if possible placed comments on.

Telegraph:  Questioning the leadership of the UNEP IPCC. Having been one of the scientists who was involved in setting up the UK climate models, and hence contributed to the Nobel Prize discussed here, many of you know I was critical of the way the models were set up. Seems on the global scale my views since 2002 are now being reflected in different ways.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7974521/IPCCs-Rajendra-Pachauri-is-damaging-the-world.html

Guardian: Two here and both I have commented on. First is Clash of the Titans. This is about a future debate between former Chief UK Scientist Sir David King and former Chancellor Nigel Lawson. This is pro and against man made climate change. I think they are like a couple of children who don’t understand the challenge. Have commented on this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/cbi-climate-change-debate-king?showallcomments=true

The next is on Andrew Simms 75 months before we cross a no return threshold as regards climate change. Again I have commented as Celticlion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/sep/01/75-months-counting-climate-change?showallcomments=true

Copenhagen: What Are We Fighting For?

“It is all something of a chess game -all the pieces have to be in the right place for the game to be won.”

Wrote Susan Watts in her BBC Newsnight Science Blog

Somehow reminding me of Broken English by Marianne Faithful. What are you fighting for?

No I don’t think Susan is correct. This is part of the problem  All this rhetoric of the ‘fight against global warming’  ‘the war on climate change’.

It is not a game, a battle, a fight or a war. People do not go into a pet shop and ask for a book on the battle of owning a puppy, or the fight in keeping goldfish, or go to Halfords and ask for something on making war on your Renault.

No we ask for caring or looking after a puppy or goldfish, or care and maintenance of a car. Anyone who using fight, battle or war in reference to climate change or running a planet, or thinks it’s a game with sides, does not understand the problem. So by default, apart from some random stab in the dark, cannot come up with answers or solutions to managing a planet on a journey to the future.

We have one planet and a long journey ahead of us if we decide to embark for the rest of the way. What we don’t want is some attempt on how to look after this planet on that journey based on some trading floor madness mentality that last year crashed something as simple as an economic system.

We can only hope nothing is achieved or agreed in Copenhagen. (It is better to have no decisions rather than a bad or wrong ones.) Then after the craziness has subsided, perhaps then we can do the job properly.

Celtic Lion

Tuesday 15th December update

From The Independent: The battle lines are drawn. The armies are lined up. The guns are loaded. But here in Copenhagen, a phony war is underway.

A fine example

Copenhagen:The Cost(?) to Redcar

At the time of the announced closure of the Corus steelworks. those who follow the BBC Newsnight blog will know I brought up the value of the carbon allowances that could be sold. I pointed out the figure from one steelworks would amaze. Some of us set about trying to find the figure.

This has just surfaced on James Delingpole blog at the Daily Telegraph.

£600 million

Though with opening another steelworks in India, to maintain levels of production, with European levels of emissions it appears another £600 could be claimed. Making a total of £1.2 billion.

Thanks to James for the info. Though I haven’t checked all the references to source.

Copenhagen: The 3 Degrees of Change

 

Population is a major problem, but unfortunately it needs long tern planning to resolve. It has been left too late.

Every time I here about climate tipping points I have to say, no! These are climate only models that say things need to be done in 20 years or 10 years.

Climate models are a simplified abstraction from reality. Imagine taking your car for an MoT and they only check the tyres. You are told they are fine and will last another 20,000 miles. The next day you drive into the back of a bus. Because they didn’t check the brakes, and they were shot.

Climate models are as they say on the tin, climate only models and predictions. They are as the name says, restricted in scope. The danger is whole planetary ecological system collapse which will happen sooner than the climate only scenarios.

We need a strategy on 3 factors.

Reduced birthrates now to ensure reduced consumption in long term 40-50 years.

Resolve the climate issue so we know what it is doing and it relationship with ecological systems. Carbon trading will not be successful if there is a relationship between CO2 and increasing temperature and/or extreme weather. This is the 8-20 year scenario.

The most important is the ecological system collapse. All decisions of the G20 must be reversed. Consumption must decrease to preserve the ecological life support systems. Those who are old enough remember the Apollo 13 mission. When the life support systems malfunctioned, they shut down all none essential systems to reduce the demand on what remained of the capsules life support system.

Planets are the same just a bigger scale. And we have no other home or oasis to reach. We have to shut down demand on Earth’s systems now. Then restore the functioning up to preexisting levels. It is not just about carbon emissions. The planet is losing the ability to absorb carbon due to damage to ecosystems. Same with pollution etc.

Demand on ecological systems must be reduced immediately, otherwise recommendations on climate change or population control will be meaningless. As we as a planet will not get to the point in time when such policies have any beneficial affect.

Ecological, climate and population systems all need to be addressed. But if we don’t act now immediately on ecological collapse. Anything we do on climate or population will never have any benefit. The system will have collapsed long before, and us with it.

Celtic Lion

Lockerbie: The UK’s Biggest Terrorist Incident?

This should be of some interest to you. A legal conundrum and terrorist related to the judicial process of Lockerbie. Most importantly an exploration of serious limitations in Scottish Law.

 (On the recommendation of DEFRA I have also advised the UK Cabinet Office on aspects of Regulatory Impact Assessment)

 I haven’t gone into all the side issues etc just to try and keep this as brief as possible, with sufficient explanation. Any comment or advice would be most appreciated. Apart from friends who know what has gone on, we are without advice, as solicitors have explained due to the limitations of Scottish Law they cannot assist.

 All content in this email can be referenced back to original documentation and evidence, though in case a spam filter blocks, it is better the message is minimal and reaches you. Any documents you may request, could be forwarded.

 Gordon Brown said Lockerbie was the most devastating terrorist incident on British soil. This is only true in the context of investigated and prosecuted terrorist incidents.

 In 1991 Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council in England had access to provisional flood models that the UK was going to experience catastrophic flooding on or after the 9th December 2006.

 These were produced by a new technology which mapped the interaction of stability/instability of difference systems. In the case of flooding land use changes, which influence speed of run off and oscillation in projected patterns. The prediction was a critically would occur at the above.

 A county councillor who knew a professor who had advised me, contacted me. He was very frightened. He told me CNBC were going to suppress the knowledge by any means available as part of a large scale fraud. The prevention of catastrophic flooding, amongst other things, would potentially create so many jobs in the area. It would reduce the grants and income the council received from central government. He was most emphatic that I did not approach the police, Cheshire Constabulary, for my own safety. What was happening was such a high level fraud the police would protect the local authority from any investigation.

 Despite the warning I still had a moral and legal responsibility to prevent the flooding and save peoples lives. An appropriate project was set up. This was where Cheshire police now enter the situation. Officers committed some of the most serious offences to close the project down.

 They hadn’t realised I had originally been a metallurgist and having worked on defence contracts, R&D, quality control, forensics etc so was an expert in the breaching of qulity control systems and associated evidential analysis.

 A Sergeant Brierley had already told me I was going to be killed. The police were now furious, I had evidence on all those involved. I had a number of visits from a Sergeant Reg Orrett. He was most gleeful in telling me what would happen to me and on whose behalf he was issuing the warnings.

 Despite the threats I still had to try and prevent the disaster, Cheshire police threatening me if I tried. As it was a civil matter and there were no civil solicitors in the area, I was advised to get one of the major London firms. None would help as they would not take a case so far out of London.

 My only option was to make a complaint. I was told this was useless but it was my only option. This resulted in Cheshire Constabulary Professional Standards. Which I found was little more than the forces PR arm. In February 2002 Inspector Stephen Bailey knew and had all the evidence that the UK was going to experience a disaster. He was told the date and the extent. His reply was ‘it will be covered up’. Cheshire police were not going to expose their officers to the most serious criminal investigation and prosecution just to prevent the flooding.

 Though I was a member of the the UK Government’s Sustainable Development Research Network, I could not warn them directly. If all they could do was refer it back to the police force where the offences were committed we were in very serious trouble. Cheshire police officers were now threatening my family. I had a long term girlfriend and her children to consider. What I did do was using my knowledge was recommend changed in legislation and farming and land use policy. Some of these did get through. But they had to be low key to protect my family from the police.

 With time running out we had to make a decision. Knowing that Scotland had a different legal system, and with the case of Lockerbie had the ability to launch a large scale terrorist investigation, and that Scotland would not escape the impending flood disaster. I moved to Scotland where my family lived.

 The children were all happy in school in England, despite all the threats. (My girlfriend had been with me when we had been threatened, 3 against 2 though.) We had kept the children out of the situation we were in. With my presence the children would always be in danger.

 Having had deaths threats and warnings from Cheshire police if I pursued the matter. The flooding could not be stopped if I was dead. So with the help of a community councillor with a degree in law I applied for political asylum for protection. The reply from the Procurator Fiscals Office (March 2006) was this could not be granted as no such arrangement exists between Scotland and England.

 They could only respond to an investigation by the police. As a resident of Scotland if I was being threaten or my life or other peoples was in danger I had first to report it to the police.

 This was the worse scenario. My girlfriend and children were 400 miles away, Cheshire police had warned me what would happen. Did I risk the safety of my family only on the prediction of catastrophic flooding. (A prediction others beloved was 100% correct).

 The mental conflict and stress was enormous. Convinced the flooding would occur I had to take the decision to report the impending flooding and the threats to my life and family. As the intention of the criminal acts was to cause indiscriminate death and destruction I reported it as a terrorist incident at Perth police station on 24th October 2006.

Despite reporting it as a a terrorist incident, and no specific details taken at reception it still took 3 stomach churning days before and officer was available to interview me. Then Tayside police sent a local community constable not a specialist anti-terror, serious crime, fraud officer.

 I was accompanied by the community councillor who had seen the evidence and could verify all I said to the police. The police officer said he could not look at the evidence as he didn’t consider it was probably a terrorist incident and would therefore not be under the jurisdiction of Scottish Law.

 Though he took details of a future massive incident. The deliberate catastrophic flooding of the UK due to criminal acts to ensure known flooding was not prevented, with an intention and consequence of causing loss of life and destruction. He said he would have to check with his superiors whether they could look at the evidence.

 He said before Scottish police could look at the evidence of terrorist activity. An independent member of the public would have to assess the evidence to determine whether conspiracy to pervert the course of justice had occurred. This would be the minimum requirement before Tayside police become involved.

 We did this and the community councillor was satisfied as the independent assessor thatconspiracy to pervert the course of justice to commit a terrorist act had been committed. We notified Tayside police as instructed. We waited and waited for Tayside police to launch a terrorist investigation. Six of the some of the most stressful weeks past. I had put my families and my own life on the line. Tayside police would not provide me or my family with any protection, despite the threats to us and our knowledge of an imminent terrorist incident.

 On 13th December 2006, Tayside and other parts of Scotland suffered catastrophic flooding. The flood models had proved nearly 100% correct, only 4 days out over 15 years.

 The next morning a letter arrived from Tayside police. They would not investigate or look at the evidence as they considered it outside of their jurisdiction. The intelligence supplied to Tayside police having been proved accurate, though the delay in deciding not to investigate a terrorism report resulted in no warning being available to those affected. The letter having been sent second class post crossed in the post with the flooding Tayside police had had 6 weeks warning of.

 Despite knowing of the Scottish flooding 6 weeks before, Tayside police did not launch a terrorist investigation. They had been told it would be catastrophic and UK wide. Still they did not warn other police forces. They would not provide protection for me or my family or any assistance for me to warn other police forces.

 In 2007 beginging in Cumbria, then Yorkshire then southern England and Wales. Apattern of flooding spread across the UK exactly as intended. 13 people died and £5 billion in destruction. Had a school bus, train, nursing home etc been caught up then the death toll could exceeded that of the Lockerbie incident.

 Two police forces knew of the UK flooding with plenty of opportunity to prevent most of it at least issue a warning. But apparently decided to take no action to protect those guilty of the atrocity.

 Tayside police despite letters saying they will interview me re the incident, then write back saying they won’t. Tayside police had 6 weeks warning of the biggest terrorist attack on the UK mainland, decided to do nothing and now will not investigate.

 Despite all the resources the police have for terrorism. They expected me to provide protection for me and my family. Raise the finance to verify the models. Raise the alarm and evacuate areas threatened. Then take legal action against those who caused it. All without any resources or support. This raises the question of why do we have a police and justice system, if it abdicates the responsibility to protecting society to individual members of the public.

 Lockerbie wasn’t the most devastating terrorist incident in the UK. The floods of 2006/7. All the evidence exists to bring those responsible to justice. Unfortunately because of those involved the police have turned a blind eye, to allow them to escape justice.

 Tayside police and Scotland have turned away £billions for the country’s economy. If they had acted before hand or carried out a terrorist investigation. The global reinsurance companies aware the technology existed and was proven would have put billions in to the economy to prevent other similar events. (Potential global market £500 billion pa).

 Tayside police may have allowed the biggest UK incident to occur and without investigation just to protect police officers in Cheshire from criminal/terrorist investigation prosecution. As the threats against me and my family are from England they will also not offer us any protection.

 Scottish Law was incapable of protecting Scotland from terrorist attack as the offences and planning was committed in England.

Related posts for further imformation

 https://celticlion.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/the-jobs-crewe-lost/

https://celticlion.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/sd-and-the-legislative-process/

The Jobs Crewe Lost

A review from the Crewe Chronicle (Cheshire Chronicle series). Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council knew in December 1991 the timing of the 2007 UK flooding. Serious criminal offences were committed in the Borough, Cheshire Police knew about them, but ignored them due to those involved.

Did Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council deliberately sabotage their own local economy to ensure higher grants from central government? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cosmic Sanctions 2) Euthanasia

 

The arrival of flying saucers raises important points:

2) Euthanasia

Visitors to the planet would first by visual observation or object proximity detection, find a debris field surrounding the planet. Derelict space craft, bits of metal, discarded tools bags, nuclear and toxic chemical materials etc.

Next they would observe a brown pall of pollution in the atmosphere over east Asia. Then smoke drifting over the planet. Either from deliberately set fires, used to drive out wild animals for hunting or capture. Or blazes in forests caused by micro and macro mismanagement of the ecological systems in question.

Scanning of the planet would reveal toxic and nuclear material in both the oceans and on land. Life sign analysis would determine the most numerous large species had reached numbers the rapidly diminishing and degraded ecological systems could no longer support.

Independent objective planetary assessment systems aboard the craft would show that in terms of intergalactic and cosmic time scales the planet was in the final seconds of it’s death throes.

The benevolent visitors might decide to administer the cosmic equivalent of a blow to the back of the head with a spade to a myoamatosed rabbit. Just to spare us further suffering before our imminent deaths.

Celtic Lion

Extremism a BBC Newsnight Post

#61 Ecolizzy

Thanks, busy tonight with steam trains;) aluminium smelting and integration of wind energy into the national grid.

In #57 I pointed out I was tortured. One reason I was told was because of my work on predictive systems to be able to determine when floods and economic collapse would occur, related to complex systems but a whole generation or more than anyone else. I was told there was fear if I wasn’t stopped, so many sustainable jobs would be created. The area would lose grants from the Government for creating jobs.

Though I had been stopped I still had to try and prevent people dying and the collapse of the planet’s ecological life support system.

Part of this was being involved in setting up of the new generation of UK climate models and contributions to UN reports, which was where the agenda for the 2005 G8 came from, climate change and Africa and the climate change/ risk assessment the UK Chief Scientist gave global publicity to.

What my honest intention was, was to use climate change only as an example of the total global ecological and environmental imperative. Unfortunately what has happened is politics and the media have become obsessed with ‘climate change’, I assume because it is easy to say and people can pretend they understand it. The real danger is ecological life support system collapse.

If we take CO2 emissions are related to energy use we have to look at what this energy is used for. Energy is the way we manipulate resources. Cutting down forests, extracting ores and minerals, processing and producing consumer goods etc. Then all the flying and traveling people do in the administration of the whole production and consumption process. So we have resource inputs, and the outputs from the economic system, waste and pollution.

If we go to a low carbon economy, in respect of our manipulation, processing and consumption of resources. It will make no difference, we will still die. All we will do is still destroy the ecological life support systems of the planet, just emit less CO2 while doing it.

Also if CO2 does cause climate change, having got rid of the ecological processes which would adapt, respond and control, it will only be much much worse than current predictions.

At present the media only give mainstream space to one narrow extreme view of planetary management. The consume till we die, shop till you drop school.

Two things also need to be considered. Quantity and quality of life. The narrow perspective extremist political system we have now talks in terms of having to reach ‘climate change’ only targets by 2020, 2050.

Prince Charles and Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation, who have both quoted or referred to my work, consider we only have 96 months.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7513635.stm

Now this is based on the climate only model. More realistically this could be reduced to 40 months taking a whole earth system model including pollution, species extinction, population, increasing consumption.

There fore peoples quantity of life will be affected. They and their families will die in a great extinction as the planet can no longer support the demand made on it.

Then there is quality. If some survive. No birds to sing in the morning. No holidays, polluted seas, burnt and chopped down forests, no animals left to watch, no woods to walk in.

What will be the quality, meaning and enjoyment of life for those who remain?