Friday, December 18, 2009
Polistra's Law of Inferred Intent
When you're dealing with competent adults who have the authority to make something happen (or not happen), you assume that deeds equal intent. What they do is what they wanted to do. Pay no attention to words, and pay no attention to what you would do in that situation. If the adults claim they wanted something else to happen, or claim that they really don't like what happened, they are lying.
So Polistra assumes that a non-agreement is what all parties really wanted at Copenhagen.
All of these world leaders supposedly agreed that "something urgently must be done", and all of them had full authority to make "something" happen.
Yet the final result is nothing substantial.
Therefore: non-agreement was the goal. This is what the real bosses wanted.
The real bosses, billionaire gangsters Soros and Pachauri and Strong, apparently prefer an unsettled and chaotic situation, with protesters riled up on all sides. Perhaps this gives more room for bets and hedges and currency manipulation; more room to blackmail governments by paying the right combination of activists. I don't know enough about gangsters to be sure of this.
Their criminal consiglieri in the "science" field obviously prefer the unsettled and chaotic situation, because you don't get any more grants after the goal of your research has been accomplished and turned into the basis of a Planetary Tyranny. I do know enough about science to be very sure of this!
= = = = =
Update 1/1/2010:
Richard Lindzen has said the same thing with more certainty.
So Polistra assumes that a non-agreement is what all parties really wanted at Copenhagen.
All of these world leaders supposedly agreed that "something urgently must be done", and all of them had full authority to make "something" happen.
Yet the final result is nothing substantial.
Therefore: non-agreement was the goal. This is what the real bosses wanted.
The real bosses, billionaire gangsters Soros and Pachauri and Strong, apparently prefer an unsettled and chaotic situation, with protesters riled up on all sides. Perhaps this gives more room for bets and hedges and currency manipulation; more room to blackmail governments by paying the right combination of activists. I don't know enough about gangsters to be sure of this.
Their criminal consiglieri in the "science" field obviously prefer the unsettled and chaotic situation, because you don't get any more grants after the goal of your research has been accomplished and turned into the basis of a Planetary Tyranny. I do know enough about science to be very sure of this!
= = = = =
Update 1/1/2010:
Richard Lindzen has said the same thing with more certainty.
Interviewer: How should we approach the solution?¶ 5:37 PM
Lindzen: No one wants to solve the problem, because then the money will stop flowing.
Interviewer: Listen, Professor Lindzen, what really is your opinion about human nature?
Lindzen: I see it this way, the way it is, not as I would like it. After the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 for protecting the ozone layer, research support disappeared. Ozone was not a problem any more – even though it still is. The stratospheric chemists work today in the area of stratosphere and climate. Politics pays science: we are very dependent on it.
Interviewer: Who pays for the necessary research?
Lindzen: NASA. Sometimes no one. I tell you, they don’t want to solve the problem. Uncertainty is essential for alarmism. The argument is always the same. It may perhaps be uncertain, but whatever is uncertain is also possible.
