Innovating to Zero Debt. A Model Answer.

A Guide for the Perplexed , That or This?

“Here’s what I came up with: P * SEC = CO2,” Gates wrote. “That might look complicated. It’s not.

“On the right side you have the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) we put in the atmosphere. This is what we need to get to zero. It’s based on the four factors on the left side of the equation: The world’s population (P) multiplied by the services (S) used by each person; the energy (E) needed to provide each of those services; and, finally, the carbon dioxide (C) produced by that energy.”

The equation that Bill Gates "discovered," according to a letter he recently published.

Mann said he strongly disagrees


“He does an injustice to the very dramatic inroads that renewable energy and energy efficiency are making,” Mann said, though he added that some of the developments are quite new.

For instance, scientists at Stanford University in California have peer-reviewed, published studies (the most respected type of study) that have “very credible outlines for how we could reach a 100 percent noncarbon energy generation by 2050,” Mann said.


The video is being uploaded as it is being a subject of censorship by climate scientist Michael Mann – whether the data of his was forged or not the satire must not be censored!

Data horribilia: the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file
With the CRU emails having been examined, it seems that some people—mainly techies—are really starting to dig into the data files. These files are, as far as we can tell, temperature data, modelling results and other such useful files, i.e. these are the files produced and worked on by the CRU teams, as well as considerable amounts of information on—and code from—the actual computer modelling programmes themselves.

In other words, these are the guts of CRU’s actual computer models—the data, the code and the applications.And they are, by all accounts, a total bloody mess.

Microsoft Working on Imperial College Pandemic Model?

The Most Devastating Software Mistake Of All Time. Why Is the Imperial Model Under Criticism?

What Is The Problem With The Model
The model is designed to simulate households, schools, offices, people and their movements. But due to bugs, the code gives different results given identical inputs. “They routinely act as if this is unimportant,” lamented Denim in his critique. Even the code that was being evaluated by interested developers doesn’t actually paint the full picture. The code that was released by the Imperial College on GitHub is allegedly a heavily modified version, and this too fails to give accurate results. In other words, this code has a replicability issue.

This model spits out wildly different outcomes if you go play around with the formatting options


Code Review of Ferguson’s Model


All papers based on this code should be retracted immediately. Imperial’s modelling efforts should be reset with a new team that isn’t under Professor Ferguson, and which has a commitment to replicable results with published code from day one.

On a personal level, I’d go further and suggest that all academic epidemiology be defunded. This sort of work is best done by the insurance sector. Insurers employ modellers and data scientists, but also employ managers whose job is to decide whether a model is accurate enough for real world usage and professional software engineers to ensure model software is properly tested, understandable and so on. Academic efforts don’t have these people, and the results speak for themselves.

My identity. Sue Denim isn’t a real person (read it out). I’ve chosen to remain anonymous partly because of the intense fighting that surrounds lockdown, but there’s also a deeper reason. This situation has come about due to rampant credentialism and I’m tired of it. As the widespread dismay by programmers demonstrates, if anyone in SAGE or the Government had shown the code to a working software engineer they happened to know, alarm bells would have been rung immediately. Instead, the Government is dominated by academics who apparently felt unable to question anything done by a fellow professor. Meanwhile, average citizens like myself are told we should never question “expertise”. Although I’ve proven my Google employment to Toby, this mentality is damaging and needs to end: please, evaluate the claims I’ve made for yourself, or ask a programmer you know and trust to evaluate them for you.

Scepticism alive and well found living in the Memory hole AKA Room 101. #ClimateSceptics #DumberandDouma #ClimateGate 10 years after. @rdrake98 @cliscep #GrubStreetJournal @di2nu

and to finish with a little more Peirce. CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: ´´In order to reason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtues as intellectual honesty and sincerity and a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientificinquirers] has been that the motive which has carried them to the laboratory and the field has been a craving to know how things really were … (1-34).[Genuine inquiry consists I in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake(1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth with intentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235). [When] it is no longer the reasoning which determines what the conclusion shall be, but … the conclusion which determines what the reasoning shall be … this is sham reasoning…. The effect of this shamming is that men come to look upon reasoning as mainly decorative…´´.

Political hypochondria. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt #FUD. An Inverted world Order , inside out , Back to front and upside down.

What Bill’s Saying here is
“we’re gonna have to Science the F#@K out of this” Melinda Gates
Dr Simone Gold: The Truth About the COVID-19 Vaccine

Peak Oil (Po)
Peak Debt (Pd)
Peak Data (Pn)
Peak Co2 (Pc)
Peak Precariat (Pp)
Peak Ignorance (Pi)

Po x Pd x Pn = Pc x Pp x Pi

Part I: Top Ten Stories



Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their conscience.
—C. S. Lewis1

Which way will we go? We don’t want to become East Germany, or even Western Europe. Consider the European Commission’s Roadmap on Vaccination document, prepared in March 2019, a year before the crisis. It recommended that EU citizens be forced to carry their vaccination status on their passports.19 The years 2019–2021 were to be used for a “Feasibility study for the development of a common EU vaccination card.” The “common vaccination card/passport for EU citizens” would arrive in 2022. Nor do we want to follow the one-worlders at the World Economic Forum, who pounced on the pandemic as a chance to launch their creepy “great reset.” What’s that? It is, as they explain,
A commitment to jointly and urgently build the foundations of our economic and social system for a more fair, sustainable and resilient future
A new social contract centred on human dignity, social justice and where societal progress does not fall behind economic development
The global health crisis has laid bare longstanding ruptures in our economies and societies, and created a social crisis that urgently requires decent, meaningful jobs20
Yeah, right. No one should be surprised that globalist technocrats, just having witnessed a grand social experiment, are now licking their chops. Making people carry papers to prove their immunity?21 One-world semi-socialism? These started as conspiracy theories, not suggestions. And we’re pretty sure that neither is quite fit for American tastes.
A more likely road to serfdom in the United States could be paved by big tech. In late March, some techno-utopians were already sketching out the solution to the pandemic. In Wired magazine, Tristan Harris called for digital platforms to provide their billions of users with a “corrective lens” to help them conform their beliefs and behavior more quickly to the new reality. “This emergency, this moment,” he wrote, “calls for a fundamentally new approach to technology—to abandon the myth of neutral metrics and engagement, and restructure technology to prioritize this corrective lens that can help save millions of lives.”22 Despotism, if it arrives on our shores, may not come wearing a swastika or hammer and sickle, or even a blue helmet. It could come bearing promises of safety, enlightenment, and stock options.
But there’s a countervailing spirit in our country. Even early on, there were hopeful signs that we had not wholly succumbed to fear. When New York mayor Bill de Blasio set up an e-hotline for residents to rat out their neighbors by sending in pictures of offenders, it was flooded with pictures of, well, manhood, Hitler memes, and extended middle fingers.23 And on Independence Day 2020, when petty tyrants such as California governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti banned fireworks displays, L.A. residents responded by lighting up the skies.24
This defiance, earthy and small as it is, gives us hope that our country won’t embrace the Brave New Normal. If we don’t learn the right lessons from the 2020 pandemic panic, though, it could sneak up, settle in, and cost us our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
COnclusion from The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe
by Jay W. Richards Ph.D., William M. Briggs Ph.D., et al. | Oct 13, 2020

Abundance or Scarcity. more with less or less with more?

“Solutions for an “abundance economy”

aren’t going to help us as we enter an age of scarcity.”
I would like to see the evidence regarding Material scarcity. Regarding Peak Energy, we are still at a high level of output although the expense EROEI for the historically very cheap Oil extraction is clear in the evidence from SEEDS.
On Output generally I think there is an Abundance but we have a distribution and accounting problem.
These I have suggested can be tackled in the following stages.
The problems in Political Economy as it stands presently and the question of future Political Economy based upon future Energy realities are I think helpfully separated which is something Prof. David MacKay is very successful with, in his presentation of the question.
The Problems are only weakly related with respect to future solutions and breaking the process into 3 parts is useful rather than lumping them all together. It is clear that the existing Form of Market economy and political economy is not able to solve the problem at stage 3 ( I.E Post 2050 post-Oil Economy)

Stage 1 requires a reform of the existing paradigm which involves facing up to the broken debt-based money system. Pension provision, the sovereign debt crisis and Public debt crisis are all addressable and will see improvements even within the deteriorating Cost of energy inputs as a share of output. We could call this stage lets fix what we know is not working.

Stage 2 covers the Post Financialised ( Big Bang Experiment) period to the oil running out in 2050.
This requires a much more long-term investment horizon and complicating the energy mix by overstating the ”Climate Change question** seems to be counterproductive, again I like the way Prof David Mackay dealt with the question including stating the necessities of **Clean Coal and Nuclear”. In this stage, we will be implementing ideas previously barred due to the denial inherent in clinging to a failing system.

Stage 3 Post 2050, This part is much easier than Stage 2 and stage 1, in my opinion, the myth-busting and levelling out inherent in solving the political problems at stage 1 and the challenge to vested interests in stage 2 are by far and away the largest obstacles to getting down to Brass tacks in my opinion.

All these folks were following a well-thumbed playbook. As Robert Higgs shows in Crisis and Leviathan, national crises have been the progressive tool of choice for government expansion. For that purpose, the 2020 pandemic panic worked better and faster than any previous crisis, and with nary a shot fired. Progressives have often spoken wistfully of “the moral equivalent of war,” a shared peacetime goal that inspires sacrificial devotion.16 The coronavirus pandemic provided just that. If millions of deaths were the alternative, short-term lockdowns and even martial law might make sense. But the only reason to think that millions could die was predictive models that were just fancy guesses—bad ones, as it turned out.

16. See Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism (New York: Crown Forum, 2009).

Gilad Atzmon on the Chabloz Case . Free Speech under attack from the Great Protector Theresa (Cromwell) May.

re-branding-dissent/ Branding The Grub Street Journal, Prescience and GolemXIV Blog #GrubStreetJournal #DangerousKnowledge #GolemXIV #TheSlog #FinancialEyes

Not Reading but Drowning. Big Data, Wordhoard. Scalable reading and human intelligent understanding. #Xanadocs #Alexandria #HypathiasEyebrowser @TheTedNelson @kramermj @DrAdrianBlau @JillanaEnteen @TheAtlantic @enkiv2


Author: rogerglewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.

7 thoughts on “Innovating to Zero Debt. A Model Answer.

Leave a Reply