What the fuck is climate change?

In a shocking revelation I found an intelligent and well-written article on the Daily Mail. I didn’t know mainstream media does that sort of thing. The article talks about the BBC spending over £500,000 of tax payer money on a survey in Asia on climate change, or moreover spreading the gospel about it. Then I thought: what the fuck is this thing called “climate change” anyways? It sounds like a natural thing, and not something we should get worked up about.

The Daily Mail writes:

“Its climate survey, published this month, is called From The Ground Up: Changing The Conversation On Climate Change. In it, farmers and villagers in India, China, Vietnam, Nepal, Pakistan and Indonesia were asked how climate change was ‘affecting their lives already’ and about their future concerns.

They described less predictable rainfall, droughts, declining harvests and an increase in respiratory disease caused by dustier soil, and blamed them on global warming.”

Wait, what? I thought the survey was about climate change, but the farmers blame their problems on global warming. How does that work? I know what global warming is. It’s the idea that CO2 emissions, largely due to human activity, cause the world to become warmer. The basic idea makes sense, even though I don’t find it scientifically that plausible, but I can appreciate global warming as a man-made concept that many believe in. Most things that people believe in are construct that do not align properly when contrasted with reality. They’re not all bad. Linguistically the term “global warming” fits the bill of the globe warming very well. I have no problem with that. However, how does climate change fit into it? Is it like Clark Kent is Superman; the same guy but on the surface they’re different?


What is climate change?

The UK Met Office explains in an article called “What is climate change?” that:

“Climate change is a large-scale, long-term shift in the planet’s weather patterns or average temperatures. Earth has had tropical climates and ice ages many times in its 4.5 billion years. So what’s happening now?

Since the last ice age, which ended about 11,000 years ago, Earth’s climate has been relatively stable at about 14 °C. However, in recent years, the average temperature has been increasing.”

So climate change is a natural thing, like I assumed in the beginning. This time the earth is warming. Makes sense. Yet another article from the Met site titled “Is climate change caused by human activity?” says even though earth’s climate cycle varies naturally, “the current climate change is very unusual as it is not exclusively part of a natural cycle”. Moreover: “there is an underlying trend of warming that is almost certainly caused by man’s activities.” Remember to be trendy, boys and girls.

So climate change, which is a natural thing, is “almost certainly caused by man’s activities”. The linguistic subroutines in my head are overheating. Why equate climate change, which is a gradual, natural thing with global warming, which is a man-made thing? That is what the media has been doing for the last few years. I’ll get back to that later.

A third Met article “Why is our climate changing?” mentions a few minor factors, such as the sun, but the main reason for warming are greenhouse gases. It is stated: “There’s overwhelming and growing evidence that the warming is due to vastly increased – and still increasing – quantities of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.” So greenhouse gases cause the earth to warm. The most important greenhouse gas is water vapour. Then the Met says: “It [water vapour] increases in concentration as the atmosphere warms. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has increased, but there’s no reason for this scale of change other than the increase in temperature.” Am I missing something? It seems to me global warming is happening, because of increased greenhouse gases as stated in the first quote. Yet the second one claims the atmosphere has had to have warmed already for water vapour to be there in such quantity. Is this a non sequitur or something? Which came first, the warming or the water vapour? Maybe I just don’t get something obvious.

Later on, the article mentions CO2 and methane also increase global warming, and their increase is due to human activity. Yadda yadda yadda. The same old global warming story. Yet this time it’s climate change.


Fashion, turn to the left

In the nineties media talked about the greenhouse effect. At some point it shifted to global warming. Now it’s climate change. Why? If it’s really a scientific thing, and something we should take seriously, and not merely a fad originated by business, politics and conspirators, and perpetuated by the media I think it would be more consistent. Especially since the naming has shifted from a very specific, the greenhouse effect, to a more general, but at least semantically logical, global warming. Now it’s the utterly generic climate change. You can pretty much say that anything that happens in nature is “due to climate change”. It’s raining, must be the climate change. I couldn’t argue with that. The bullshit in the story is that they try to equate a generic, natural process such as climate change with a man-made construct such as global warming. I predict the next incarnation of this story will be called “stuff”. After a few years climate change won’t be trendy anymore. Then the news can announce: “There was severe drought in China and heavy snowfall in France because of, you know, stuff.” Al Gore and his cultists can propose new magical rituals, and laws and taxes, to try to alleviate the effect of “stuff”.

This indecisiveness reminds me of a teenage girl being unable what to wear to the party, or a rapper who changes his name frequently. Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, Sean Combs. Who cares? It’s not serious scientific adult stuff, it’s just entertainment with the veneer of seriousness.

If the global warming/ climate change posse were really concerned about human influence on the climate and nature they’d look into GMOs, chemtrails and geo-engineering, fracking and that “stuff”.



Now for the comic relief. The WWF site (nothing to do with wrestling, it’s some gay panda stuff) says cow farts is one the main reasons for “climate change”. WWF: “Industrialised nations have also breeding vast numbers of methane-producing livestock and cutting down the forests that naturally absorb carbon dioxide from the air.”

Climate change information website of New Zealand says: “Persistent human activities like driving cars, farming, burning coal and cutting down forests produce greenhouse gases”. So is that how you run a greenhouse, a regular one with plants, you put a combustion engine inside and burn fuel to give the plants CO2?



BBC spends £500k to ask 33,000 Asians 5,000 miles from UK what they think of climate change: Corporation savaged for ‘astonishing’ campaign survey on global warming: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2673654/BBC-spends-500k-ask-33-000-Asians-5-000-miles-UK-think-climate-change-Corporation-savaged-astonishing-campaign-survey-global-warming.html

What is climate change?: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change

Is climate change caused by human activity?: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change/why/causes

Why is our climate changing?: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change/why

World Panda Wrestling Foundation: http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/tackling_climate_change/climate_change_explained/

Climate change information New Zealand: https://www.climatechange.govt.nz/science/what-is-climate-change.html


“The locust, a harmless desert grasshopper. But, from time to time, locusts swarm in their tens of millions and become creatures of terror. They leave behind them desert and desolation. Why they swarm is yet a mystery. Perhaps, like all of us, they dream of grass and sparkling water, of a safe and perfect land.”

– (Supposedly) from Monkey, a Japanese TV series based on the Chinese story Journey to the West


Hong Kong has a problem with overpopulation. It’s made much worse by tourists and immigrants from mainland China who cause all sorts of problems. They come to Hong Kong to shop or enjoy the greater freedoms that Hong Kong has compared to socialist/ totalitarian China. The Hong Kong people call the mainland Chinese locusts. They cause problems due to cultural differences (even though both parties are Chinese there are still many difference between the offspring of Maoist China and descendants of subjects of the British crown). Moreover the mainland Chinese exploit the welfare system in Hong Kong. The local government has naturally sold out to the central government in Beijing, and does not represent the people.

Sounds familiar? It’s not that different from the immigration problems in Europe and USA. The main problem is Europe is immigrants from Islamic countries who have little desire to integrate into European culture. In the US the problem is mainly, to my understanding, Mexican and South American immigrants, legal and illegal. Both in US and Europe the governments have been quite happy to ignore the needs of their citizens in favour of some insane ideology based on “multiculturalism”. I assume this isn’t news to anyone.

It is not racist nor intolerant or anything like this to admit there is a problem with excess immigration. Immigrating to another country can be great thing for the immigrant and the foreign country he’s going to. Exchange of ideas, communication with new people, learning new ways of doing things and so on. However it’s not that simple in reality. Immigrants will experience various kinds of problems. I should know, I’ve lived one year in Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea as an exchange student.

They were great experiences, and I certainly have mostly fond memories of each experience. Yet when you are actually living in a foreign country you will experience all sorts of problems like culture shock, language barrier, different climate, the bureaucracy and so on. It’s not all fun and games even though I chose to go live in those countries myself. I wanted to go there, but it still doesn’t mean I could adapt that well to many things. Although overall I would say I did alright. I’ve also met loads of other exchange students. Some of them adapted very well, others couldn’t really adapt at all. And most of them also wanted to go live in that foreign country.

How about people who don’t really want to live in a foreign country, but are forced to do so by other circumstances. Finland received lots of Somali refugees when I was a kid in the early nineties. There controversy and debate in the media whether they should be allowed to come or not. How easy is it for an African to adapt to the cold, dark and long winters of Finland, not to mention the culture? This is not so much a moral issue to ask whether or not Finns are racist or Somalis are lazy or prone to crime or something like that. It is merely a practical issue. Will it work? Has it worked? I guess to a certain degree. The regular Finns haven’t forced the Somalis into concentration camps, nor have the Somalis wrought major havoc. Still, I’m not so convinced that was necessarily the most practical solution. It sounds more like an ideological one to me.

But nowadays most of the immigrants coming to Europe aren’t really refugees, are they? Why the fuck are they coming? Because the top politicians have an ideological goal to dump bunch of non-Europeans to Europe, and they use the welfare system to give the immigrants benefits. It’s not about compassion or helping people from third world countries. That’s not a major global agenda. What seems more pertinent is turning European nations into third world countries in an artificial multiculturalist experiment.

Really, what motivates the masses of immigrants to come to Europe? I don’t think it’s the love of European culture, or to work there, but to have an easy life. Does an immigrant from an Islamic country moving to England or France hold love for his new home? I doubt it. The motivation is what matters the most. I’m Finnish, and naturally love my country (although it’s not Finnish to say that), but Japan, Hong Kong, China and Korea are close to my heart too. I can honestly say that. I didn’t go there just to parasite resources off of Asia. I was, and still am, fascinated by those countries. Is this what motivates the countless immigrants flooding to Western countries?

I am not opposed to anyone visiting Finland or living there if they do it for righteous reasons. I’m happy if foreigners are interested in Finland for it’s culture, nature, heavy music or whatever reason. It doesn’t matter what someone’s race, nationality or religion is. However when a few genuine individuals grows into a swarm of locusts we have a problem. To make it simple, I don’t have a problem with Africans or Middle-Easterners coming to Finland, or even moving there permanently, if that is what they really want. When swarms of them are coming to colonize Finland, there is a great problem.

The issue is between a small of group of individuals and the subtle distinction when it becomes a swarm, a mob, a herd. Don’t let bunch of outsiders swarm your country wherever you are. This is not Western vs Oriental, or White vs Black/ Brown. I wouldn’t want Finns swarming Riad or Kabul. Nor do I want to see Americans swarm Helsinki or Turku. Individuals from those places are fine. Many Hong Kong people have friends and relatives in mainland China. They become a problem only when they grow into a swarm. We should prevent it before it happens, alas it is hardly the human way of doing things.




Monkey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)


I’ve always been interested in controversial topics and I often find safe, socially acceptable topics boring and pointless to discuss. I haven’t really understood why the majority of people shy away from controversial issues. After all, doesn’t it mean if an issue is controversial that some truth regarding the issue is obscured? For example, 9/11 is controversial in the mainstream explanation vs conspiracy theories, and also between supporters of conspiracy theory X vs theory Y. Conversely if an issue is socially acceptable there’s not much new information you can add to the conversation unless you add a new controversial viewpoint. It’s not controversial to talk about sports unless you bring up corruption or scandals in the background.

Therefore if you see an issue that is controversial you should look on, unless it’s a really a non-issue presented as controversial, such as the question is Snowden a traitor because of his revelations or not. That is not the issue, but the issue is what makes Snowden so different from other whistle-blowers, except Julian Assange, why is he famous while many others are not? Of course, it does not imply that an alternative explanation presented in place of a conventional explanation is necessarily any more true than the conventional one. For example, conventional historians say that the pyramids in Egypt are around 5000 years old tombs, but many controversial explanations claim the pyramids are much older. They probably weren’t tombs and weren’t built by Pharaoh Khufu, yet this does not necessarily conclude they were built by space aliens. Even though, I personally like any explanation that challenges established dogma no matter how silly it seems or actually is, as at least it gets the ball rolling and forces people to re-evaluate their beliefs.

So, controversy is good. If you feel that a certain topic is controversial, it merely means there is something you’re not seeing, and probably prefer not to see, yet you should see. Not much to add really. I’m just dismayed by the obsession of the masses to stay in their government allotted comfort zones.

The Brazil World Cup

I find it somewhat stupid that I found out the football World Cup (or soccer as the people who like hand-egg call it) is starting from beer ads. A couple of different brands have advertised their beer with the football World Cup theme with the ads plastered around in supermarkets.  Same goes for Pepsi, Coca Cola and their like. Some restaurants have had the World Cup theme in them just to be part of the fad. Other corporate entities do the same thing. I hate it and find it insane and disgusting.

I won’t complain about people being obsessed with something as trivial as football. We all have out favourite distractions and forms of entertainment. It isn’t a bad thing as long as we don’t let it run our lives. I’m not a big fan of football, or sports for that matter, but it would be nice if the World Cup inspired people to do some actual physical exercise, since we increasingly live in a world where we are merely brains in a jar hooked to a computer. Alas, I fear most people who are actually interested in the World Cup merely sit on their asses drinking beer while they watch the game.

However beyond this obvious criticism of how sports, something inherently healthy and active, encourages people to be unhealthy and passive, I have another axe to grind. Why the fuck do we have all of these corporate parasites leeching off of the World Cup, and who do people accept it as natural? What is the point in a beer brand like Blue Girl adding a football theme to their ads during the Cup? If I wanna drink beer I do it regardless of any stupid ad. Beer is pretty nice from time to time. I understand the beer company wants people to drink their particular beer, and not another brand, and thats how our society works, but what I don’t quite accept is why people don’t call out the bullshit. What difference does it make if a piece of paper under my plate in a restaurant has a silly illustration and reference to the World Cup? Does it make the food taste better, does it make it more healthy? Seriously, it’s stupid and just a waste of money. Beyond this being a symptom of the parasitic corporate system trying to come up with new gimmicks to leech more money, it’s a bigger sickness in society.

Our society at large has no purpose, no real identity. We are mere consumers with an attention span of 5 minutes. Searching for the next fad to fill our lives with a sense of purpose and excitement. Or so they want us to see ourselves. This time our religion is the World Cup. After it is over we will feel empty and disappointed. After a few weeks a new fad will come along. Be it a new popular movie like Harry Potter, another sporting event, or a tragedy like a natural catastrophe or a mystery like the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. We fiddle around it for a while, we cry or laugh, or bitch about it how stupid it is, but still it occupies our minds so we don’t really have to think who we are, what we are doing or what we should be doing. We hop from one festival to another as a society. The only meaning we have when we manage to delude ourselves for a moment that the fad is meaningful. Ultimately though we year for an unconscious existence. As Ian Xel Lungold put it, unconsciousness “mother of all addictions and the father of all suicides”. We want to be unconsciousness and alive just enough to die off gradually.

Some of these fads were carefully scripted to give us more unconsciousness, others just came about and were allowed to continue. A few are pleasant surprises for those on top of our global society.

I have to end this post with a quote from the movie Se7en: “we see a deadly sin on every street corner, in every home, and we tolerate it. We tolerate it because it’s common, it’s trivial. We tolerate it morning, noon, and night. Well, not anymore. I’m setting the example.” The corporate consumerist mindset is not sane in any sense of the word. It disgusts me, and it should disgust every authentic human being.

Back to Feudalistic Values

About ten years ago I read a book of the feudalistic middle-ages in Europe for a university exam, which I failed. Nevertheless I remember the book saying that in the middle-ages society emphasized verbal agreements and oaths between people, especially between lord and vassal. Modern society does not regard verbal agreements as reliable as written ones. If someone writes it on a piece of paper, or a computer file, its binding.

Nowadays we tend to regard the feudalistic system as archaic and dated at best, and in many ways it is, but it worked for centuries in Europe and Asia, so there must have been something it did right. What is it? I would say it is tied to verbal agreements, or rather emphasizing personal relationships between people. Nowadays we peasants and working men feel quite separated from the upper class people of politicians and money tycoons. Even if the politicians are there on paper to represent us, in practice that is not the case and anyone with half-a-brain and mind not clouded by ideology can see that.

The feudalistic system can be seen, if we look at it with rose coloured glasses, as a system that emphasizes a relationship between different people, and therefore communication with others. This is a great thing. Of course in many cases feudalism didn’t work this ideally, but I’m sure there are cases when the feudal lord took his duty to protect his subjects seriously. Not every feudal lord was Prince John from Sherwood.

In China before it adopted Confucianism the land was in turmoil with wars and treachery everywhere. However by adopting Confucianism they managed to live in relative peace and harmony, for a while. Or so I’ve heard. The Confucian system reminded the people of the importance of a decent relationship with each other, instead of trying to back stab them at every opportunity for gain, as we do today. Or that is how I see it. Eventually though, naturally, the Confucian system became corrupted. Advice and reminders turned to literal dogma, which lead to new kind of oppression.

Probably also when democracy was popularized in various countries late 19th century and early 20th century it brought positive changes, because the people elected into parliament took their duty to listen to the voters seriously. That is not how it works anymore, though. But back then, even democracy worked in some cases as a tool for encouraging communication between people.

This is the lesson we should learn from history. To have a sane, moral and flourishing society we have to have communication between people. If we have an organic society it will have some sort of social classes no matter how much you try to equalize them. There will be a working class, middle class, intellectuals, probably also some sort of ruling class. The best way to protect the small guy is not to attack the big guy, but to ensure they can communicate.

I don’t think the actual political system a society has matters much in the end. If the general feeling, morality and intelligence of the people is good the system will work, not perfectly, but adequately. On the other hand, if the general values of society are greed, lust and disgust, as we have nowadays, the system will not work, no matter what social engineering wizards try to do with it. That is not to say we shouldn’t try to come up with new ideas, or how to rework old ones to work for us, but it is only secondary when it comes to society and human life. Our values and morals have to be in order before we can even attempt to make a system. To do that we need communication.

Movies program people to rebel? Hunger Games and V for Vendetta

I read today on the news that protesters in Thailand are using a three finger salute from the movie Hunger Games to express their opposition of the coup in their country. I found it rather creepy. The Guy Fawkes mask made famous by the movie V for Vendetta has been used all around the world for many years now as a symbol of rebellion. That’s definitely creepy. The movie wasn’t awful, but having read the comic (or the “graphic novel” if your farts smell like flowers) just prior to seeing the movie when the movie came out, I can say the V for Vendetta comic was awesome, the movie wasn’t. The movie missed the point, intentionally, which was (at least part of the point) anarchy. To me using a Guy Fawkes mask in public is an act of submission. Unless of course you really wanna be anonymous, which the mask can help you be among the countless zombies.

Anyway back to Thailand and Hunger Games. When the movie came out conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and David Icke were saying how the Hunger Games is like a promotion for the New World Order or something. I certainly don’t disagree with that assessment, even though not sure if I agree. The movie was sort of boring and sort of creepy (in a lame way). I didn’t really get the point from a storytelling or artistic point of view. What struck me though was the archetype of the young teenage girl with the bow they seem to be promoting. Similar stuff was in the latest Tomb Raider game released last year. Not really sure what it means, though, but seems like they are promoting this lost and confused teenage survivor archer heroine archetype for some reason. So I guess I have to say I agree that Hunger Games is used as some kind of social engineering propaganda tool.

Yet have the Thai protesters really been programmed by the movie? Maybe it’s mostly media hype. For example RT says: “thousands of people took to the streets over the weekend, calling for democratic elections. Many of the protesters made the three-fingered salute and one woman was detained for making the gesture at police”. There were thousands of protesters, but only an ambiguous “many” made the three finger salute. At least there are quite a few pictures of the salute on the RT webpage, but still I question how authentic the situation was. The old man with the “Stop the coup”-sing in English seems like he was told to stand there holding the sign. The Guardian, Washington Post and Time don’t even have that many pictures. We have to trust their word on it…

I guess this is a case of incredibility of the media versus gullibility of the masses. Take your pic who’s the winner. RT is supposed to be one of the good guys, but I don’t think so. Don’t get me wrong, I think they do proper honest journalism fairly often, but I still don’t trust them.


Hunger Games

Tomb Raider



‘Hunger Games’ three-finger salute adopted by Thai protesters (PHOTOS): http://rt.com/news/163280-hunger-games-salute-thailand/

Hunger Games salute banned by Thai military: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/03/hunger-games-salute-banned-thailand

‘Hunger Games’ salute used as protest in Thailand: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/hunger-games-salute-used-as-protest-in-thailand/2014/06/03/d2249306-eb4e-11e3-b10e-5090cf3b5958_story.html

Hunger Games Salute Becomes a Real Sign of Dissent in ‘Tyrannical’ Thailand: http://time.com/2816496/hunger-games-salute-becomes-a-real-sign-of-dissent-in-tyrannical-thailand/

The Freedom of Limitation

God is supposedly omnipotent, meaning he can do whatever he wants. Therefore God cannot really make a rock so large he cannot lift it. Man as a limited being however is able to lift a rock so large he cannot lift. Without getting into any too specific and complex notions lets define “a rock you large X cannot lift it” just as “a fucking large rock”, a rock very large in relation to the being lifting it. Compared to a mouse a rock the size of a sedan would be “fucking large”, but to a human being it would only be very big. A fucking large rock to a human would be the size of a truck, maybe. What is the size of God, what is small and big compared to God? Everything and nothing, I guess, but it doesn’t really matter.

A single man cannot really lift even a rock the size of sedan, no matter how strong it is, however a small group of strong men could. Furthermore man can build machines to lift big and large rocks for him, meaning the rock is so big man cannot lift it, yet he is able to lift it due to his ingeniousness. God cannot do this. S/he cannot create obstacles for himself and then overcome them the same as man, or alternatively he cannot fail in them as we often do. Our whole life consists of new goals and obstacles to attain and overcome. We are born without knowing how to speak or walk, but we learn it. And it feels great when we do it. When you’re a teenager you may find merely talking to the opposite sex an insurmountable challenge, but you’ll overcome it eventually. This process of attaining goals and overcoming challenges is something truly human which God, whether you believe God to be real or a mere philosophical tool to illustrate my point, is incapable of. At least directly.

Perhaps this is what is meant when people claim that we are God’s or the universe’s way of experiencing itself subjectively. The infinite, the omnipotent cannot challenge itself unless it creates itself a challenge. To do that it has to program all of us with the idea that we are limited, even though, we are separate expressions of the infinite, and in fact, part of the infinite. As the Buddhists say, we are already enlightened we merely have to understand it. Enlightenment and rediscovering our true nature is only a challenge, a process, an adventure, because we choose to make it so [Picard!]. This world is a “Matrix”, a computer game we all chose to play, but sort of forgot we were playing a game. Then stuff got ugly. Then again, maybe we chose to forget it to make it seem real. Otherwise we wouldn’t really give it all we got.

Our limitation actually does grant us something even God is incapable of doing, except through us. I am not saying this in any Luciferian sense that we are greater than God, but to simply to note that it’s quite interesting how things sometimes are. The limitation gives us room for progress and chance in either direction. It allows us to break free from constraints, yet if the constraints had never been there we wouldn’t have known what it feels to like to earn freedom.