Bigly Important – Secretary Rex Tillerson Discusses U.S. India Relationship…


Those who are following the Trump Doctrine, strategic U.S. geopolitical alliances, and the bigger part of the big picture for how President Trump and the administration are positioning the U.S. economy toward lessening ties with China, will note the significance of this speech and the content therein.  The media will remain oblivious to it.

The Trump Doctrine surrounds modern international economic engagement only possible with a president who is not beholden to the multinational corporations and multinational banks who occupy lobbying offices on K-Street in Washington DC.  A key component of the approach is the ability to build relationships which can be leveraged for America-First interests with national economic partners aligned in common cause.

Under the Trump Doctrine, India is a strategic economic counter-weight to remove the leverage China has created for the past 20+ years.  Nothing that has happened within the strategic approach of President Trump happens accidentally.  Even the positioning of U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley is a part of this dynamic lost on almost everyone except a few who understand the insight of a president who has thought through every angle for years prior to taking office.

Small, seemingly obscure, details are part of the big picture; nothing is without design.  Understanding this principle helps to assemble the framework for this speech by Secretary Rex Tillerson.  WATCH:

“China, while rising alongside India, has done so less responsibly, at times undermining the international, rules-based order even as countries like India operate within a framework that protects other nations’ sovereignty.”

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, thank you so much, John, and it is a real pleasure to be back in the building. And I was asking John if the building was meeting all the expectations that we had when this project was undertaken, and I see so many faces in the room that were a big part of bringing this to a reality. I think he told me there’s four simultaneous events going on today, and I said, “Perfect. That’s exactly what we had in mind.”

So I also want to thank many of you in the room for the 11 years, great years I had serving on the board of trustees here, and your mentorship of me. And I learned so much during the time I was here in those engagements. And I thank John for his friendship. He was a dear friend throughout that time. And it really has been important to my ability to do what I’ve been asked to do to serve the country. So again, it is a real pleasure to be here, and thankful for the opportunity to be back in this building.

So first, let me wish everyone a happy Diwali to all our friends in the United States, in India, around the world who are celebrating the Festival of Lights. Generally, fireworks accompany that. I don’t need any fireworks; I’m getting too many fireworks around me already. (Laughter.) So we’ll forgo the fireworks.

My relationship with India dates back to about 1998, so almost 20 years now, when I began working on issues related to India’s energy security. And I’ve had many trips to the country, obviously, over those many years. And it was a real privilege to do business with the Indian counterparts then, and it’s been a great honor this year to work with the Indian leaders as Secretary of State. And I do look forward to returning to Delhi next week for the first time in my official capacity. This visit could not come at a more promising time for U.S.-Indian relations and the U.S.-India partnership.

As many of you know, this year marks the 70th anniversary of relations between our two countries. When President Truman welcomed then-Prime Minister Nehru on his visit to Washington, he said, and I quote, “Destiny willed that our country should have been discovered in the search for a new route to yours.” I hope your visit, too, will be in a sense of discovery of the United States of America.

The Pacific and the Indian Oceans have linked our nations for centuries. Francis Scott Key wrote what would become our national anthem while sitting aboard the HMS Minden, a ship that was built in India.

As we look to the next 100 years, it is vital that the Indo-Pacific, a region so central to our shared history, continue to be free and open, and that’s really the theme of my remarks to you this morning.

President Trump and Prime Minister Modi are committed, more than any other leaders before them, to building an ambitious partnership that benefits not only our two great democracies, but other sovereign nations working toward greater peace and stability.

Prime Minister Modi’s visit in June highlighted the many areas of cooperation that are already underway in this new area of our strategic relationship.

Our defense ties are growing. We are coordinating our counterterrorism efforts more than ever before. And earlier this month, a shipment of American crude oil arrived in India, a tangible illustration of our expanding energy cooperation. The Trump administration is determined to dramatically deepen ways for the United States and India to further this partnership.

For us today, it’s plain to see why this matters. India represents the world’s largest democracy. The driving force of our close relationship rests in the ties between our peoples – our citizens, business leaders, and our scientists.

Nearly 1.2 million American visitors traveled to India last year. More than 166,000 Indian students are studying in the United States. And nearly 4 million Indian Americans call the United States home, contributing to their communities as doctors, engineers, and innovators, and proudly serving their country in uniform.

As our economies grow closer, we find more opportunities for prosperity for our people. More than 600 American companies operate in India. U.S. foreign direct investment has jumped by 500 percent in the past two years alone. And last year, our bilateral trade hit a record of roughly $115 billion, a number we plan to increase.

Together, we have built a sturdy foundation of economic cooperation as we look for more avenues of expansion. The announcement of the first Global Entrepreneurship Summit ever to be hosted in South Asia, to take place in Hyderabad next month, is a clear example of how President Trump and Prime Minister Modi are promoting innovation, expanding job opportunities, and finding new ways to strengthen both of our economies.

When our militaries conduct joint exercises, we send a powerful message as to our commitment to protecting the global commons and defending our people. This year’s Malabar exercise was our most complex to date. The largest vessels from American, Indian, and Japanese navies demonstrated their power together in the Indian Ocean for the first time, setting a clear example of the combined strength of the three Indo-Pacific democracies. We hope to add others in coming years.

In keeping with India’s status as a Major Defense Partner – a status overwhelmingly endorsed last year by the U.S. Congress – and our mutual interest in expanding maritime cooperation, the Trump administration has offered a menu of defense options for India’s consideration, including the Guardian UAV. We value the role India can play in global security and stability and are prepared to ensure they have even greater capabilities.

And over the past decade, our counterterrorism cooperation has expanded significantly. Thousands of Indian security personnel have trained with American counterparts to enhance their capacity. The United States and India are cross-screening known and suspected terrorists, and later this year we will convene a new dialogue on terrorist designations.

In July, I signed the designation of Hizbul Mujahideen as a Foreign Terrorist Organization because the United States and India stand shoulder-to-shoulder against terrorism. States that use terror as an instrument of policy will only see their international reputation and standing diminish. It is the obligation, not the choice, of every civilized nation to combat the scourge of terrorism. The United States and India are leading this effort in that region.

But another more profound transformation that’s taking place, one that will have far-reaching implications for the next 100 years: The United States and India are increasingly global partners with growing strategic convergence.

Indians and Americans don’t just share an affinity for democracy. We share a vision of the future.

The emerging Delhi-Washington strategic partnership stands upon a shared commitment upholding the rule of law, freedom of navigation, universal values, and free trade. Our nations are two bookends of stability – on either side of the globe – standing for greater security and prosperity for our citizens and people around the world.

The challenges and dangers we face are substantial. The scourge of terrorism and the disorder sown by cyber attacks threaten peace everywhere. North Korea’s nuclear weapons tests and ballistic missiles pose a clear and imminent threat to the security of the United States, our Asian allies, and all other nations.

And the very international order that has benefited India’s rise – and that of many others – is increasingly under strain.

China, while rising alongside India, has done so less responsibly, at times undermining the international, rules-based order even as countries like India operate within a framework that protects other nations’ sovereignty.

China’s provocative actions in the South China Sea directly challenge the international law and norms that the United States and India both stand for.

The United States seeks constructive relations with China, but we will not shrink from China’s challenges to the rules-based order and where China subverts the sovereignty of neighboring countries and disadvantages the U.S. and our friends.

In this period of uncertainty and somewhat angst, India needs a reliable partner on the world stage. I want to make clear: with our shared values and vision for global stability, peace, and prosperity, the United States is that partner.

And with India’s youth, its optimism, its powerful democratic example, and its increasing stature on the world stage, it makes perfect sense that the United States – at this time – should seek to build on the strong foundation of our years of cooperation with India. It is indeed time to double down on a democratic partner that is still rising – and rising responsibly – for the next 100 years.

But above all, the world – and the Indo-Pacific in particular – needs the United States and India to have a strong partnership.

India and the United States must, as the Indian saying goes, “do the needful.” (Laughter.)

Our two countries can be the voice the world needs to be, standing firm in defense of a rules-based order to promote sovereign countries’ unhindered access to the planet’s shared spaces, be they on land, at sea, or in cyberspace.

In particular, India and the United States must foster greater prosperity and security with the aim of a free and open Indo-Pacific.

The Indo-Pacific – including the entire Indian Ocean, the Western Pacific, and the nations that surround them – will be the most consequential part of the globe in the 21st century.

Home to more than three billion people, this region is the focal point of the world’s energy and trade routes. Forty percent of the world’s oil supply crisscrosses the Indian Ocean every day – through critical points of transit like the Straits of Malacca and Hormuz. And with emerging economies in Africa and the fastest growing economy and middle class in India, whole economies are changing to account for this global shift in market share. Asia’s share of global GDP is expected to surpass 50 percent by the middle of this century.

We need to collaborate with India to ensure that the Indo-Pacific is increasingly a place of peace, stability, and growing prosperity – so that it does not become a region of disorder, conflict, and predatory economics.

The world’s center of gravity is shifting to the heart of the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. and India – with our shared goals of peace, security, freedom of navigation, and a free and open architecture – must serve as the eastern and western beacons of the Indo-Pacific. As the port and starboard lights between which the region can reach its greatest and best potential.

First, we must grow with an eye to greater prosperity for our peoples and those throughout the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

By the year 2050, India may boast the second largest economy in the world. India’s population – with a median age of 25 – is expected to surpass that of China’s within the next decade. Getting our economic partnership right is critical.

Economic growth flows from innovative ideas. Fortunately, there are no two countries that encourage innovation better than the United States and India. The exchange of technologies and ideas between Bangalore and Silicon Valley is changing the world.

Prosperity in the 21st century and beyond will depend on nimble problem solving that harnesses the power of markets and emerging innovations in the Indo-Pacific. This is where the United States and India have a tremendous competitive advantage.

Our open societies generate high-quality ideas at the speed of free thought. Helping regional partners establish similar systems will deliver solutions to 21st century problems.

For that to happen, greater regional connectivity is essential.

From Silk Routes to Grand Trunk Roads, South Asia was for millennia a region bound together by the exchange of goods, people, and ideas.

But today it is one of the least economically integrated regions in the world; intra-regional trade has languished – sitting at around 4 or 5 percent of total trade.

Compare that with ASEAN, where intra-regional trade stands at 25% of total trade.

The World Bank estimates that with barriers removed and streamlined customs procedures, intra-regional trade in South Asia would nearly quadruple from the current $28 billion to over $100 billion.

One of the goals of greater connectivity is providing nations in the Indo-Pacific the right options when it comes to sustainable development.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation is one model of how we can achieve it. The program is committed to data, accountability, and evidence-based decision-making to foster the right circumstances for private investment.

Last month, the United States and Nepal signed a $500 million compact agreement – the first with a South Asian nation – to invest in infrastructure to meet growing electricity and transportation needs in Nepal, and to promote more trade linkages with partners in the region, like India.

The United States and India must look for more opportunities to grow this connectivity and our own economic links, even as we look for more ways to facilitate greater development and growth for others in the region.

But for prosperity to take hold in the Indo-Pacific, security and stability are required. We must evolve as partners in this realm too.

For India, this evolution will entail fully embracing its potential as a leading player in the international security arena. First and foremost, this means building security capacity.

My good friend and colleague Secretary Mattis was in Delhi just last month to discuss this. We both eagerly look forward to the inaugural 2+2 dialogue, championed by President Trump and Prime Minister Modi, soon.

The fact that the Indian Navy was the first overseas user of the P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft, which it effectively fields with U.S. Navy counterparts, speaks volumes of our shared maritime interests and our need to enhance interoperability.

The proposals the United States has put forward, including for Guardian UAVs, aircraft carrier technologies, the Future Vertical Lift program, and F-18 and F-16 fighter aircraft, are all potential game changers for our commercial and defense cooperation.

The United States military’s record for speed, technology, and transparency speaks for itself – as does our commitment to India’s sovereignty and security. Security issues that concern India are concerns of the United States.

Secretary Mattis has said the world’s two greatest democracies should have the two greatest militaries. I couldn’t agree more.

When we work together to address shared security concerns, we don’t just protect ourselves, we protect others.

Earlier this year, instructors from the U.S. and Indian Armies came together to build a UN peacekeeping capacity among African partners, a program that we hope to continue expanding. This is a great example of the U.S. and India building security capacity and promoting peace in third countries – and serving together as anchors of peace in a very tumultuous world.

And as we implement President Trump’s new South Asia strategy, we will turn to our partners to ensure greater stability in Afghanistan and throughout the region. India is a partner for peace in Afghanistan and we welcome their assistance efforts.

Pakistan, too, is an important U.S. partner in South Asia. Our relationships in the region stand on their own merits. We expect Pakistan to take decisive action against terrorist groups based within their own borders that threaten their own people and the broader region. In doing so, Pakistan furthers stability and peace for itself and its neighbors, and improves its own international standing.

Even as the United States and India grow our own economic and defense cooperation, we must have an eye to including other nations which share our goals. India and the United States should be in the business of equipping other countries to defend their sovereignty, build greater connectivity, and have a louder voice in a regional architecture that promotes their interests and develops their economies. This is a natural complement to India’s “Act East” policy.

We ought to welcome those who want to strengthen the rule of law and further prosperity and security in the region.

In particular, our starting point should continue to be greater engagement and cooperation with Indo-Pacific democracies.

We are already capturing the benefits of our important trilateral engagement between the U.S., India, and Japan. As we look ahead, there is room to invite others, including Australia, to build on the shared objectives and initiatives.

India can also serve as a clear example of a diverse, dynamic, and pluralistic country to others – a flourishing democracy in the age of global terrorism. The sub-continent is the birthplace of four of the world’s major religions, and India’s diverse population includes more than 170 million Muslims – the third-largest Muslim population in the world. Yet we do not encounter significant number of Indian Muslims among foreign fighters in the ranks of ISIS or other terrorist groups, which speaks to the strength of Indian society. The journey of a democracy is never easy, but the power of India’s democratic example is one that I know will continue to strengthen and inspire others around the world.

In other areas, we are long overdue for greater cooperation. The more we expand cooperation on issues like maritime domain awareness, cybersecurity, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, the more the nations in the Indo-Pacific will benefit.

We also must recognize that many Indo-Pacific nations have limited alternatives when it comes to infrastructure investment programs and financing schemes, which often fail to promote jobs or prosperity for the people they claim to help. It’s time to expand transparent, high-standard regional lending mechanisms – tools that will actually help nations instead of saddle them with mounting debt.

India and the United States must lead the way in growing these multilateral efforts.

We must do a better job leveraging our collective expertise to meet common challenges, while seeking even more avenues of cooperation to tackle those that are to come. There is a need and we must meet the demand.

The increasing convergence of U.S. and Indian interests and values offers the Indo-Pacific the best opportunity to defend the rules-based global system that has benefited so much of humanity over the past several decades.

But it also comes with a responsibility – for both of our countries to “do the needful” in support of our united vision of a free, open, and thriving Indo-Pacific.

The United States welcomes the growing power and influence of the Indian people in this region and throughout the world. We are eager to grow our relationship even as India grows as a world leader and power.

The strength of the Indo-Pacific has always been the interaction among many peoples, governments, economies, and cultures. The United States is committed to working with any nation in South Asia or the broader region that shares our vision of an Indo-Pacific where sovereignty is upheld and a rules-based system is respected.

It is time we act on our vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific, supported and protected by two strong pillars of democracy – the United States and India. Thank you for your kind attention.

(Applause.)

MR HAMRE: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We’re going to move this down so people over here can see. We’ve got a blocking vector.

Thank you for really a very interesting speech. One particular phrase really caught my attention. I’d like to just drill in a little bit on it, and I had the luxury of seeing it last night, so this is why I wrote it down. (Laughter.) “We need to collaborate with India to ensure the Indo-Pacific is increasingly a pace – a place of peace, stability, and growing prosperity so that it does not become a region of disorder, conflict, and predatory economics.” Very interesting expression. Would you – what do you see as being the example of predatory economics that we should be alert to ourselves between us?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, I think everyone is aware of the huge needs in the Indo-Pacific region among a number of emerging economies, a number of fledgling democracies for infrastructure investment, and it is important that those emerging democracies and economies have alternative means of developing both the infrastructure they need but also developing the economies. We have watched the activities and actions of others in the region, in particular China, and the financing mechanisms it brings to many of these countries which result in saddling them with enormous levels of debt. They don’t often create the jobs, which infrastructure projects should be tremendous job creators in these economies, but too often, foreign workers are brought in to execute these infrastructure projects. Financing is structured in a way that makes it very difficult for them to obtain future financing, and oftentimes has very subtle triggers in the financing that results in financing default and the conversion of debt to equity.

So this is not a structure that supports the future growth of these countries. We think it’s important that we begin to develop some means of countering that with alternative financing measures, financing structures. And during the East Asia Summit – Ministerial Summit in August, we began a quiet conversation with others about what they were experiencing, what they need, and we’re starting a quiet conversation in a multilateral way with: How can we create alternative financing mechanisms? We will not be able to compete with the kind of terms that China offers, and – but countries have to decide: What are they willing to pay to secure their sovereignty and their future control of their economies? And we’ve had those discussions with them, as well.

MR HAMRE: Secretary, just – that’s – that really helps open up a new understanding, that we all have to develop. And if I could just ask, this seems to be an asymmetry because you ran a big corporation. For you to raise capital for a major project, you’d have to go to public markets, the discipline of a public market, and yet you were competing against state-owned enterprises that could turn to a central bank and get a no-interest loan or maybe just a grant. I mean, this is a profound asymmetry that we have to deal with. It may go beyond just new financing instruments. How are you thinking about it?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, I think, in many respects, it is the case that has to be made to these countries that need the infrastructure financing that they really have to think about the long-term future of how do they want their country and their economies to develop. And in many respects, those were similar to the kinds of discussions and arguments that we would make back in my private sector days, that here are all the other benefits you receive when you allow investment dollars to flow to you in this way: You retain your sovereign control, you retain complete control over the laws and the execution within your country. And that should have significant value to them as they’re thinking about the future. And so it is – while it is on a direct competitive basis, it’s hard to compete with someone who’s offering something on financial terms that are worth a few points on the lending side, but we have to help them put that in perspective of the longer-term ability to control their country, control the future of their country, control the development of their economy in a rules-based system. And that’s really what we’re promoting is you retain your sovereignty, you retain your commitment to a rules-based order, we will come with other options for you.

MR HAMRE: Great. Thank you. And I apologize. Ambassador Singh is here. He is running a very dynamic embassy. I want to make sure that you knew he was here, and I’m going to ask a question he would ask, but he’s not going to get to – (laughter) – and that is: I was in India in August and great enthusiasm in India about a growing relationship, but real frustration with the way in which we restrict India getting access to technology and this sort of thing. What – what would – this is the ambassador’s question: So how are you going to fix that?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, just so you know, he’s not shy. He’s asked the question. (Laughter.) So I mean, we’ve had discussion about it, and I touched on it briefly in the prepared remarks in designating India as a major defense partner and Congress’s affirmation of that.

I think as everyone appreciates, the U.S. has the finest fighting military force on the planet, first because of the quality of the men and women in uniform – all-volunteer force, but they’re also equipped with the greatest technologies and weapons systems that are unmatched by anyone else in the world. So that’s an enormous advantage to our military strength, so we don’t provide that lightly, and that’s why we have such rigorous review mechanisms when we get into technology transfer.

But having said that, our most important allies and partners have access to that, and India has been elevated to that level. And that’s why I touched on a couple of systems that are not offered to everyone. The Guardian UAV system is an extremely technological piece of kit that we now are making available, and we’re in discussions with India about other high-level weapons systems. And as I said, it’s all to improve their capabilities to play this important security role that we know that they want to play in the region. So we’re continuing to work through those systems in a very deliberate way while protecting America’s competitive advantage in this area.

MR HAMRE: I don’t know how close you all listen, but the Secretary had a remarkable invitation, which is for the U.S. and India to jointly take a larger leadership role together in Southeast Asia. It was quite an important statement. You also indicated that there would have to be an evolving architecture of coordination. You hinted that it could revolve around expanding the U.S.-Japan-India trilateral. You indicated maybe Australia. Does – is that going to be the architecture of America’s engagement in this new strategy?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, I think as you heard me say and if you think about the map – the Indo-Pacific all the way to the Western Coast of the United States, and that’s the part of the map we’re dealing with – India, this very significant and important democracy, pins one side of that map; Japan, another very important and strong democracy that we have very strong security relationships with, pinning this side of the map. But there’s an important part of the South Pacific that also we think needs an important pinpoint as well. Australia, another very strong and important strategic partner, ally to the U.S., has fought in every war and has fought alongside us. In every battle we’ve ever fought, the Australians have been there with us.

So we think there are some useful conversations to have in the current trilateral relationship, which is very strong and effective – the India-Japan-U.S. relationship. So we’re going to continue to explore how do we strengthen that architecture that really is – it is about this Indo-Pacific free and open policy that we have, and how do we pin that in the proper places with our strongest, most important allies, and how do we strengthen those in this multi-party arrangement. India-Australia relations, how can they be strengthened? It has to be in everyone’s interest, obviously. India has to see it in their interest. Japan has to see it in their interest.

But it is going to be an evolving process as to how we create the security architecture which keeps this free and open Indo-Pacific region, creates the opportunity for nations to protect their own sovereignty, to have the opportunity to conduct their economic affairs without being threatened by others. And that’s really what the architecture’s design is intended to do.

MR HAMRE: I’m going to turn back to you as an energy guy. And last week – last month, I should say, we had the Indian minister responsible for renewable energy was here, and this is a big push for India. Now, you’re not the Secretary of Energy, but you know a lot about it. How do you think we could expand cooperation on energy issues with India?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, there – I know there are any number of active programs within India. India has huge energy needs, not just from the direct supply of energy but also the infrastructure to distribute that energy and get it into – so that all Indians have access to that, both for their personal quality of life but also to support economic growth and expansion. And I know CSIS has some particular programs that are exploring that as well, and those are all, I think, important avenues and mechanisms.

The U.S. has a very important energy posture in terms of the technology that’s been developed here across the entire slate of energy choices from conventional to renewables and other forms of energy, and I think that’s the value of the relationship is within the U.S. business community and our entrepreneurs and our innovators, we have a large slate of opportunities we can offer in partnering with India to meet those needs, and we want to – we’re encouraging that. Again, we think the work that CSIS is doing is valuable in that regard as well to create those relationships to provide that. It’s another area of opportunity for U.S. businesses.

MR HAMRE: As our Indian friends complain rightly about the restrictiveness of technology, American companies complain about how hard it is to do business in India. How is that conversation going to enter into your discussions?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: It has its ups and downs. And in the 20 years I’ve dealt with India, I encountered these same frustrations. I think India has undertaken a number of important reforms, and we want to acknowledge that. I think it’s important that those efforts and that momentum be sustained. It’s easy to take a few actions, you get a few reforms in place, and then say okay, we’re done, let’s sit back. You’re never done. You’re never done. And that’s my message to India: You’re never done. Because the world around you is not sitting stagnant, and you have to continue to put in place the necessary conditions that is attractive, first, to Indian business, just your own internal business entities, but also then make it attractive for foreign investors to come to India and grow that economy.

I think an – one of my interesting early experiences with India was in the ‘90s India undertook very, very little foreign direct investment. It was a very closed system. They didn’t encourage companies to go out and invest overseas. And one of my first interactions was to facilitate the purchase of ONGC Videsh Limited, which is a very important Indian national oil company, acquiring 20 percent Sakhalin-1 project in Russia. And I put those parties together for a lot of reasons that served the interest of the people I represented at that time. But it was an interesting discussion. I had a lot of conversation with the Indians in that process because they were not used to investing overseas. That resulted in me going to a business conference in Goa.

A couple of years later they asked me to come over to meet with Indian businessmen that were being encouraged to invest overseas. Again, it was kind of a new thing for them. And I remember the last – we had a panel discussion, a lot of great questions. The last question I got, one of the Indian businessmen said, “If there’s one thing that we should always make sure we keep in our mind in investing overseas, what is it?” And I said to him, “It’s very simple. Choose your partners wisely.” Because in any venture you are going to have partners, and who you choose is going to determine your success.

I’ve carried that same most-important element in any relationship. I’ve always viewed that. And that’s the way we view the Indian-U.S. relationship now: Choose your partner wisely. We think we have wisely chosen a partner in India for the strategic relationship, but I think that process I have watched over the 20 years of India investing abroad helps India understand the conditions necessary to be successful back home, because when you have to encounter it as a foreign direct investor, suddenly you understand what’s important to success. You take that back home, and that helps you with your reforms back home.

We encourage India to continue the pathway towards reforms. There’s much more that needs to be done to really enhance the full economic value of what India has to offer.

QUESTION: I have about four or five questions that are all kind of clustered around the same issue, and that’s about the complex power geometry in this region. We’ve – India historically had close ties with Russia. China had close ties with Pakistan. We had – we tried to keep ties with both India and Pakistan. It’s a lot more complicated environment now. Could you just give your thoughts about India in this power geometry?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, our – my view, and I think it is the collective view within the U.S. Government as well, is as China has risen over the last 20-plus years now to take its rightful place as an economic power in the world, moving hundreds of millions of their people out of poverty into middle-class status, India too has been rising. And I commented on this again in the remarks. As we watch how these two very large nations are taking their place – rightful place in the global economy, they’ve gone about it in different ways, and I touched on that. And I think that’s why the U.S. now sees this as an important point in thinking about the next century of our relationships.

We’re going to have important relationships with China. We’ll never have the same relationship with China, a non-democratic society, that we can have with a major democracy.

And so I think what has evolved, and I would have to let the Indians – Indian Government speak for themselves, but I think as India has gone through this process of rise, it too has taken account of the circumstances around it and its own history of relationships, and how have those relationships served their advancement and how have they not served their advancement. And I think as a – as the world’s largest – one of the world’s largest democracies, the world’s largest democracy, it has said, I want to be a partner with another democracy; I don’t want to partner with these other countries that do not operate with the same values.

I think at the end of it, this relationship is built on shared values. That’s what has brought us together. Two very large important democracies want to share the same future and we have a shared vision for the future.

And I think that’s what’s changed over the last couple of – three decades. There’s been a real accounting, as I have observed it – a real accounting has been taken by the Indian Government of its past experiences and it’s decided, this is where we want to go.

MR HAMRE: Secretary, it’s – I know it’s not precisely the reason for your trip, but I think we have several questions. I’d have to ask you about Myanmar. You know there’s been an incredible humanitarian crisis with the Rohingya. Could you just share us your perspective on this?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, we’re extraordinarily concerned by what’s happening with the Rohingya in Burma. I’ve been in contact with Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the civilian side of the government. As you know, this is a power-sharing government that has emerged in Burma. We really hold the military leadership accountable for what’s happening with the Rohingya area.

What’s most important to us is that the world can’t just stand idly by and be witness to the atrocities that are being reported in the area. What we’ve encouraged the military to do is, first, we understand you have serious rebel/terrorist elements within that part of your country as well that you have to deal with, but you must be disciplined about how you deal with those, and you must be restrained in how you deal with those. And you must allow access in this region again so that we can get a full accounting of the circumstances. I think any of us that read this recent story in The New York Times, it just had to tear your heart out. It just had to break your heart to read this.

So we have been asking for access to the region. We’ve been able to get a couple of our people from our embassy into the region so we can begin to get our own firsthand account of what is occurring. We’re encouraging access for the aid agencies – the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, UN agencies to – so we can at least address some of the most pressing humanitarian needs, but more importantly, so we can get a full understanding of what is going on. Someone – if these reports are true, someone is going to be held to account for that.

And it’s up to the military leadership of Burma to decide what direction do they want to play in the future of Burma because we see Burma as an important emerging democracy. But this is a real test. It’s a real test of this power-sharing government as to how they’re going to deal with this very serious issue.

So we are deeply engaged. We’re engaged with others and we’re going to be engaged at the UN, ultimately, with the direction this takes.

MR HAMRE: Again, several questions: We’re dealing with Afghanistan and Afghanistan has complex geography, complex geopolitics, I should say, as well. The Indians have had a strong interest in what happens in Afghanistan, as does Pakistan, part of the backdrop here. Afghanistan – what are you going to be doing there?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, you heard the President’s announced his new policy towards – and it’s the South Asia strategy. Afghanistan is what people tend to focus on. But one of the differences in how we approach the challenge there, and it’s why it took a little longer for us to fully develop the policy, is we do see it as a regional issue. It’s not solely an Afghanistan issue.

And you solve Afghanistan by addressing the regional challenges. And Pakistan is an important element of that. India is an important element of how we achieve the ultimate objective, which is a stable Afghanistan which no longer serves as a platform for terrorist organizations. Our policy, quite simply, on terrorism is that we will deny terrorists the opportunity, the means, the location, the wherewithal, the financing, the ability to organize and carry out attacks against Americans at home and abroad, anywhere in the world. Well, clearly the threat to that policy finds its locus in many ways in Afghanistan. And so, to the extent we can remove that as an opportunity for terrorism in Afghanistan, the greatest beneficiaries are going to be Pakistan and Afghanistan. And India’s important role is in providing development assistance to Afghanistan as they move forward to create better economic conditions that provide for the needs of a very diverse ethnic group of people in Afghanistan. So it is about a commitment, a message to the Taliban and other elements that we’re not going anywhere. And so we’ll be here as long as it takes for you to change your mind and decide you want to engage with the Afghan Government in a reconciliation process and develop a form of government that does suit the needs of the culture of Afghanistan.

And to the Afghan Government, they have to be committed to being open to addressing the full needs of the very ethnically diverse culture that exists in the country and its own history as well. And we think that is achievable and we can have a stable, peaceful Afghanistan. And when that happens, a big threat is removed from Pakistan’s future stability as well, which then creates a better condition for India-Pakistan relationships. So we see it as not just one issue, but a means of stabilizing the entire region. And we intend to work closely with India and with Pakistan to, we hope, ease tensions along their border as well.

Pakistan has two very troubled borders – two very troubled borders. And we’d like to help them take the tension down on both of those and secure a future stable Pakistan Government which we think improves relations in the region as well.

MR HAMRE: Secretary, I’m – I know I’m running close up to the deadline I was given by your horse holders, but let me ask – several questions were dealing with development, and I guess the question I’d like to pose to you is: We’ve got a very capable new administrator for USAID. I know you personally have been quite involved in aid and development-related issues through the years. What do you see as the relationship between the State Department and USAID going forward? How are you thinking about it?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, we – I think it’s no different than has traditionally been the roles of the two organizations. State Department develops foreign policy, it develops the strategies and the tactics, and an important element of our execution of foreign policy is development aid and assistance, whether it be in direct humanitarian assistance, food programs to address dire needs, disaster response, or whether it’s in developing democratic capacity and institutional capacity. So USAID is an important enablement tool of the foreign policy. They don’t make policy, but they are critical to our execution of foreign policy. And that’s really where we want that expertise to reside, and I view them as in many – using lingo of my prior life, they are a center of expertise when it comes to aid and development programs. Nobody does it better than they do; not just directly, but they have tremendous organizational and convening capacity to work through other multilateral organizations. Whether it’s UN organizations, NGOs, direct in-country capability, they are really the experts in the world for doing that. They have the relationships, they have the contacts, they have the process, they have the procedures and they’re vital to our execution of foreign policy. And therefore, they become integral to how we develop foreign policy, how we test its viability, and then how we lay out the plans, the strategy and the tactics for executing against that policy.

So that’s – that’s the relationship and one of the things we want to be sure is that everyone understands their roles and everyone understands what’s not their role. On the State Department side, our expertise is the analysis, the assessment, the development of foreign policy, the carrying of the diplomatic integration of all of that. USAID, though, they are really the experts and that we’re – the State Department doesn’t have that expertise. It really resides over there.

MR HAMRE: One last – I got a sign that said, “Last question.” Let me ask this last question and – in recent years, most secretaries of state have been policy people, they’ve spent their life in the policy world. But frankly, through the history of the department, we’ve had a great number of businesspeople that have been in. What is the – how do you think about the way that you can work with the private sector in advancing American diplomacy and American values around the world?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, I think one of the things that’s important for us is to make sure that we are – we have great clarity around what our policies are, what our strategies, what our tactics are so that investors, the business community, can at least make their assessment as they’re trying to make decisions about their own business conduct, private enterprise, whether it’s investment, foreign direct investment that they want to make, or whether it’s partnerships they’re creating for investment here in the U.S. It goes back to my earlier comment: Choose your partners wisely.

One of the things I think is important for us in the State Department to do is to be able to ensure we can provide clarity to the business community and to investors as to what the relationship is with a particular country, how we view the risk, the stability of that country. Those were things that were important to me in making decisions when I was in the private sector. It is a risk management decision. So how can we help everyone understand what the risks are in this country, but also what the vectors are? Do we think the vectors going in the right direction, or we have concerns that things could go in the wrong direction, and then the business leaders can make their own decisions about what they choose to do.

MR HAMRE: I think you all can see why I was so lucky for 11 years to have Secretary Tillerson on my board. He’s a wise and thoughtful man. Would you please thank him with your applause?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Thank you.

[Transcript Link]

Obama Administration Bribed by Russians?


Another example of how corrupt it is in Washington, prior to the Obama Administration, including Hillary, approved the Russian purchase of American uranium resources, it turns out that the FBI has gathered evidence confirming that there was bribery taking place for Russia to get the deal. Of course, Loretta Lynch never investigates Democrats when her own Administration is the corrupt one behind the curtain.

Obama administration approved the deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a much of the American uranium sources. It turns out that the FBI had gathered significant evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering to get the deal in the USA. They had a confidential witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails from 2009 onward.that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

This has been reported in The Hill, which is widely read on Capitol Hill. The quest now becomes – why has this not been investigated? And people don’t seem to get upset how failed lawyers, run for Congress who are average or broke and leave office rolling in the money. It’s not a swamp that has to be drained – its an ocean!

 

Fear of Heights – Vertical Markets


The rally in the US share market has been a VERTICAL MARKET as our computer has been warning would unfold. A VERTICAL MARKET is one that takes off yet leaves the vast majority behind because they just cannot believe the rally. I have been warning that this is the most hated bull market in history. The entire bull run during the 1920s was 97 months and we passed that mark last April.

 

They wrote the book on When Genius Failed over the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) debacle. People who create models make one fatal mistake – they are cheap when it comes to data. They even won the Nobel Prize for the model that blew up in the LTCM debacle. Why did genius fail? Because their model was based on data only back to 1971 when the floating exchange rate system began.

Now we have the ECB vice-president Vitor Constancio warning of the dangers of new price bubbles on the markets. Nobody seems to understand this market and they never will without a database that stretches back at least a few hundred years. You simply have to see how the market reacts under all conditions, Here t6he Dow Jones Industrial Index we extended back to 1790. The computer bought the low in 2009 and has been adding to long-term positions.

Constancio is totally clueless. He has referred the task of investigating this bubble to the regulatory authorities, which he says are known specialists in this area. Of course, if they really knew what was going on they would tell him. They also have no actual trading experience so how are they going to judge what is taking place based upon personal opinion?

The ECB’s caution has its reason becaue they too fear what is going to happen when they exit from the bond program if they even can. The program has transformed from economic stimulus to a plain outright program to reduce the financing interest rates of the over-indebted Euro-States keeping them on life-support. If this support by the ECB is eliminated, the outbreak of a new debt crisis in Europe could send interest rates soaring and a collapse in confidence in government. Therein lies the crisis. Once capital figures out that it is the governments who are in trouble, it becomes Mario bar the door!

After the WEC, we will make available for $750 – How to Trade a Vertical Market

Global Cooling is Killing Penguins – Not Global Warming


Contrary to Global Warming, the reality of what is going on is serious and these fakes scientists have distorted the cyclical nature of our world for personal gain that they are leading us down a path of serious destruction. The ice has expanded so much that there is a major catastrophe in the penguin community. All but two Adelie penguin chicks have starved to death in their east Antarctic colony. Nature scientists are calling this breeding season as “catastrophic” because the unusually high amounts of ice late in the season, has made adults penguins travel further for food.

It is the second bad season in five years after no chicks survived in 2015 also because of the expansion in ice. We are headed into a serious decline in temperature and that is when civilization declines significantly. The worst appears to be hitting after 2032. This is really no joke.

Analysis of Global Temperature Trends, September, 2017, what’s really going on with the Climate?


The analysis and plots shown here are based on the following two data series. First NASA-GISS estimates of a global temperature shown as an anomaly (converted to degrees Celsius) as shown in their table Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) and shown in Chart 1 as the red plot labeled NASA the scale for the temperatures is on the left. The NASA LOTI temperatures are shown as a 12 month moving average because of the large monthly variation. Second NOAA-ESRL Carbon Dioxide (CO2) values in Parts Per Million (PPM) which are shown in Chart 1 as a black plot labeled NOAA the scale for CO2 is shown on the right.

NASA published data as stated in the first paragraph is shown as an anomaly, but what is a temperature anomaly?  An anomaly is a deviation from some base value normally an average that is fixed. There were two problems with the system that NASA picked which were number one there is no “actual” global temperature and two since climate is a variable there cannot be a real base to measure from. NASA known for its science and engineering expertise back in the day thought it could get around these issues and created a system to do so. First they developed a computer model which took readings from all over the planet and made required adjustments to them which they called homogenization and came up with the estimated global temperature. Second they picked the period 1950 to 1980 (30 years) and averaged the values found in that period and came up with 14.00 degrees Celsius and make that their base.  Then they took the calculated monthly temperature and subtracted the base from it which gave them the anomaly. The problem is that both are arbitrary.

Now that we have a base to work with we are going to add to Chart 1 three things. The first is a trend line of the growth in CO2 since that is according to the government through NASA and NOAA the entire basis for climate change. That plot is superimposed over the black plot of the actual NOAA CO2 values as the cyan line labeled as the CO2 Model and one can see there is a very good fit to the actual NOAA values so there should be no dispute about its validity.  This plot allows us to make projections to future global temperatures according to the projected level of CO2 .  The second added item is James E. Hansen’s Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models (GCM’s) and which was based on a CO2 sensitivity value of 3.0O Celsius per doubling of CO2. This plot is shown here in lavender and is part of a presentation that Hansen showed to congress in 1988 when the UN was about to set up the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and this plot is labeled as Hansen Scenario B which Hansen stated was the most likely to happen based on his 1979 climate theories’.  The third item is the current plot of the most likely temperature of the planet based on the growth of CO2 published by the IPCC. This plot is shown in Red and is labeled as IPCC AR5 A2 as that is the table where the data was found. This plot is a GCM computer projection of the planets temperature based on the complex relationships developed on the levels of CO2 by the IPCC primarily though NASS and NOAA.

It can be seen in Chart 2 that the lavender plot and the Hansen plot are very close from 1965 to around 2000 after that, from 2000 to 2014, there is a very large and deviation reaching close to .5 degrees Celsius in 2015, which is not an insubstantial number.  Also of note is that there doesn’t seem to be a good correlation between the growth in CO2 and the increase in the planets temperature. The CO2 is going up in a log function and the Temperature was going down until 2015 and then there was a mysterious spike up. That unexplained change in temperature direction appeared to have occurred between 2013 and 2014 and is the subject of this monthly paper.

Next we have Chart 3 which is developed from the raw data from NASS and NOAA as shown in Chart 1.  This plot was made first by adding ten years blocks of temperature and CO2 as indicated in the Chart 1 and diving by 120 to give an average for each.  Then the average Temperature was divided by the average CO2 to give degrees of temperature increase per PPM of CO2. After that was plotted it appeared that there were two different curves. The first was from block 1965-1974 through block 2004-2014 shown as Black Dots and the second was from block 1995-2004 through block 2005-2017 shown as Black Dashes. When trend lines were added they were both almost perfect fits to the raw data and so you cannot see the data points very well on Chart 2.  These blocks were picked to represent the entire period of time where we had both NASA temperature data and NOAA CO2 levels.

On Chart 3 there are two sets of color coded information. The first is Cyan plot and the Cyan box with the equation in it along with the R2 value of 1.0 are for the first series from block 1965-1974 through block 2004-2014. The other is the Red plot and the Red box with the equation in it along with the R2 value of 1.0 which are for the first series from block 1965-1974 through block 2004-2017. We can speculate on how this change happened but it can’t be said that the plot change is not real; however additional data will be required to actually prove that something has changed.

In summary the Cyan data set indicates a diminishing effect of CO2 on global temperature for about 54 years and the Red data set represents an increasing effect of CO2 on global temperature for the past 3 years. Since both data sets have an R2 value of 1.00 the trend lines cannot be in question.

Continuing the analysis of what happened to the NASA data in table LOTI from Chart 3, the following Chart 4 was constructed from the same NASA data. It’s very sad to say but it seems to prove without much doubt that the global temperatures have been manipulated by NASA probably at the request of the federal government such that a case could be made for supporting the COP21 Paris climate conference in December 2015 by showing that the earth was much hotter than it actually was. The dates on the x axis are the date of the NASA LOTI download file. The plots for specific date groupings are set such that one can see what that date range did in each separate NASA download. The proof is shown in Chart 4 below and a discussion will follow below Chart 4 on how Chart 4 was constructed.

At the bottom of Chart 4 is a blue trend line of NASA LOTI temperatures prior to 1950 and starting in2012 the values started going down, getting colder. At the same time the NASA LOTI temperatures from 2012 to the present went up as shown in the red line.  There was no change in the base period, black line. This cannot happen with random variables they will cancel each other out; this could only be caused by specific program changes in the process that NASA and NOAA use, in other words it is intentional. So there can be no other reason but an attempt to support the adoption of the Climate accord agreement by the administration, and they were successful as it was agreed to in Paris at COP21.

How this table was constructed is important so a discussion is needed. As stated in the opening paragraph of this paper NASA publishes a table of the estimated global temperature each month as anomalies from a base of 14 degrees Celsius. This table starts with January 1880 and runs to the current date. The new table typical comes out mid-month with the values for the previous month and for August 2017 there were 1,652 values. The process that is used to create this Table is very complex and is called homogenization. What that means is that the entire table is recreated each month and what that also means is that the temperature value for any given month is a variable.

When I realized the extent of that in 2012 I started to save the printouts of the NASA LOTI tables and I went back and found a few of them from when I started this project in 2007. When I started this project what I did is type in all the values from the NASA table into a spreadsheet each month which was a daunting task and I was very happy when NASA started to publish a csv file along with the text of the LOTI data. Then all I had to do is create a routine in excel that would turn the table format into a column format.  There are now 62 months in the spreadsheet, when I started this method in 2012 there were maybe only a dozen. The values are residing in the spreadsheet as columns going from left to right so that the individual months are lined up side by side. This makes comparison of months very easy. One note is required here, when I started this model in 07 and for several years thereafter all I was doing is adding the current NASA LOTI current months number to the existing file, a single column, and it never occurred to me that the prior numbers were changing. The past was fixed, so I thought. This was also the way I was entering the NOAA CO2 data which doesn’t change over time.

The original goal was to see if the changes were just random or rounding errors. If that was so then they would wash out over time especially if I grouped the monthly data into blocks. I’ve used both 10 year (120 values) and 20 year (240 values) blocks which would be enough to maintain a fixed number if it was random or rounding. What I found was something quite different after I had a dozen or so columns in the spreadsheet, it appeared that NASA was making the past colder and the present warmer. And the purpose of the previous two Charts 3 and 4 is to show the result. Chart 4 is a bit complex but I have not found a better way to show what happened.

From 1880 to 1960 I used four 20 year blocks.  Then I needed the base so there is a 30 year block from 1950 to 1980 and lastly four 10 year blocks from 1980 to the present. The last block is not yet complete as it will run to December 2019. Because the 30 year base block is fixed at 14.0 degrees Celsius there wasn’t much point in charting those individual yearly values even though there was some minor movement in those numbers. That raises an interesting issue for how can the base numbers not change and all the other numbers from 1880 to 2017 can change each month? A note, for each data set of years the plot on Chart 4 should be a straight line from left to right; very minor fluctuation would be OK. For example the plot for 1930 to 1949 (hidden behind the black plot) is what would be normally expected. This is the only plot that doesn’t show major manipulation.

In the four data sets in the 1880 to 1940 blocks in Chart 4 all have moved down probably about a .25 degree Celsius which is not insgnificant. So the bottom line is that NASA made all the values from 1880 to 1940 colder by an average of a quarter of a degree Celsius. So that alone accounts for a high percentage of the supposed global warming that NASA shows. From 1980 to 2009 the data change appears to add another .1 degrees Celsius making the apparent differential between data from early 00’s to the present about .35 degrees greater than it was before 2009. That is not random that is a major change and clearly shows manipulation. I would probably never had caught this is if I hadn’t put the values in column format. Looking at all the data from 2008 to 2014 we find that around 2008 NASA showed that the planet had warmed about .75 degrees, Blue double arrow, from the 19th century. Then in 2014, four years later NASA showed that the planet had warmed about .95 degrees Red double arrow from the 19th century. However it gets a worse after that.

The change started in 2012, Green Oval, and Global temperature jumped almost a quarter of a degree by December 2015 just as the COP21 conference was in session. The temperatures kept going up with an eventual increase in global temperature of about 1.2 degrees Celsius in late 2016. At that point with the pressure off NASA appears to be erasing what they did as the global temperatures have now started back down.  I’m not sure how many know of this blatant manipulation but it is serious. This is not science.

Now we need to consider other factors than CO2 on Climate change.  The fault that occurred in the work that was done in the 1980’s was in assuming that there was an optimum or constant global temperature and therefore any change that was being observed was from the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  There may have been correlation but it was never proved that there was causation (high R2 value) between CO2 and global temperatures; Chart 3 clearly shows there is not. With that assumption, which limited options, we moved from true science into the realm of political science.  True science has an open mind and finds relationships that work in matching observations with predictions.  Political science changes history and/or facts to match the desires of the politicians. Since the politicians control the money political science is what we get; which means that what we get may not be technically correct.

A decade ago when I started looking at “climate” change the first thing I did was look at geological temperature changes since it is well known that the climate is not a constant; I learned that 52 years ago in my undergrad geology and climatology courses in 1964. The next paragraph explains currently observed patterns in climate related to this subject and is historical accurate.

Ignoring the last Ice Age which ended some 11,000 years ago when a good portion of the Northern hemisphere was under miles of ice the following observations give a starting point to any serious study on the subject of climate. First, there is a clear up and down movement in global temperatures with a 1,000 some year cycle going back at least 3,000 to 4,000 years; probably because of the apsidal precession of the earth’s orbit of about 20,000 years for a complete cycle. However about every 10,000 years the seasons are reversed making the winter colder and the summer warmer in the northern hemisphere. 10,000 years from now the seasons will be reversed again. Secondly, there are also 60 to 70 year cycles in the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans that are well documented. These are known as the Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillations (AMO) in the Atlantic and as La Nina and El Nino in the Pacific. Thirdly, we also know that there are greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that can affect global temperatures. Lastly the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that carbon dioxide had a doubling rate of 3.0O Celsius plus or minus 1.5O Celsius in 1979 when there were only two studies available and one for sure and maybe both were not peer reviewed.

The result of looking objectively at the three possible sources of global temperature changes was a series of equations based on these observations that when added together produced a sinusoidal curve that seemed to follow NASA published temperatures very closely when first developed in 2007, and modified a few years later when it was found the short and long cycles were related to multiples of Pi.  Since this curve was based on observed temperature patterns it was called a Pattern Climate Model (PCM) which has been described in previous papers and posts on my blog and since it is generated by “equations” many assume it is some form of least squares curve fitting, which it is not. It does seem to be related to ocean currents where the bulk of the planet’s surface heat is stored.

Chart 5 shows the PCM a composite of two cycles and CO2. There is a long trend, 1036.7 years with an up and down of 1.65O Celsius (.00396O C per year) we in the up portion of that trend. Then  there is a 69.1 year cycle that moves the trend line up and then down a total of 0.29O Celsius and we are now in the downward portion of that trend (-.01491O C per year), which will continue until around ~2035. Lastly, there is CO2 currently adding about .0079O Celsius per year so together they all basically wash out at -.0039O C per year, which matches the current holding pattern we were experiencing until 2014. After about 2035 the short cycle will have bottomed and turn up and all three will be on the upswing again duplicating what was observed in the 1980’s.  Note: the values shown here are only representative from what is in the model.

When using a 12 month running average for global temperatures up until 2014 the PCM model was within +/- .01 degrees of what NASA was publishing in their LOTI table since the early 1960’s as shown in Chart 5. Further the back projection of the PCM plot matched historical records and global temperatures going back past the time of Christ. It should also be considered that geologically CO2 levels have reached levels many times that of the current 400 ppm without destroying the planet so the current hysteria over the current very small numbers can only be explained by political science not real science.

The nest step in this analysis is to put all of the known data and projections into Chart 6 which contains: NASA’s temperatures plot, NOAA’s CO2 plot, the CO2 model plot, the PCM model plot, Hansen’s Scenario B plot, and lastly the IPCC AR5 A2 global temperature plot. With that done we can look at the results and try to make some sense of what is going on with the various arms of the federal government that are promoting that we tax carbon based fuels to eliminate them since they are responsible for the global temperature level  going up.  As previously stated when the government pours money into the sciences the sciences respond with technical papers the support the governments views, this is what I call political science verses real science as was done prior to the 1980’s; money talks and BS walks as everyone on the street knows.

Chart 6 shows a good overview and contains no data manipulation and the only change that was made was to convert the NASA anomalies back to degrees Celsius to make it more readable to lay people.  This is only a change in units and has no bearing on the look.  We also need to understand the NASA homogenization process and its relationship to the 30 year base period. The portion in the black circle contains the NASA base period of 14.00 degrees Celsius and the reason it’s brought up here is that the Homogenization process causes the global temperatures to move around since the entire data base all the way back to 1880 is recalculated each month.  But since the base has to stay at 14.00 degrees Celsius the program must be set to not allow changes in that period of time. I’m sure the programmers have fun with that. Prior work here has shown how this creates a teeter totter effect with the data plots, some of which have recently been significant.

Next Chart 7 looks at the period from 2010 to 2020 so we can see where a change in CO2 of only a few ppm has caused a major change in the global temperature way beyond anything previously shown in any published NASA data. There are two black ovals on Chart 7 one at the top of Chart 7 which is a black oval around the CO2 levels from 2012 to 2016 and part of 2017 and it’s very obvious that there has been very little change, maybe 7 ppm or about 1.9%. Then at the bottom of Chart 7 is another black oval around the NASA global temperature levels for the same period and its very obvious that there has been a large change, almost .50 degrees Celsius or about 3.1%. There has never been such a large increase in temperature from such a small increase in CO2. By contrast the previous comparable period of the last part of 2010 through 2013 shows about the same increase for CO2 at 1.1% but no increase for global temperature but actually small decrease.

Clarification is needed here as the plot seems to show the jump in temperature in 2016 not 2015; this is a result of the large jump in temperature shown by NASA. Since we are using a 12 month moving average and the increase occurred in only a few months it actually shifted the curve into 2016. The raw data for December 2015 showed the temperature at 15.12 degrees Celsius compared to December 2014 where it was 14.78 degrees Celsius. The actual peak was in February 2016 at 15.35 degrees Celsius.   With the global temperature over 15.0 Celsius at COP21 the climate accord was approved and the manipulation was a success. After COP21 the need for Fake Warming was no longer needed and so we are now seeing a downward trend developing.

In summary, the IPCC models were designed before a true picture of the world’s climate was understood. During the 1980’s and 1990’s CO2 levels were going up and the world temperature was also going up so there appeared to be correlation and causation. The mistake that was made was looking at only a ~20 year period when the real variations in climate all move in much longer cycles of decades and centuries.  Those other cycles can be observed in the NASA data but they were ignored for some reason.  By ignoring those actual geological trends and focusing only on CO2 the Global Climate Models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed.

In summary we have Chart 8 which shows why CO2 is not increasing the temperature of the planet by any meaningful amount. The problem, intentional or not, goes back to physics and how we show information. It’s critical that when we talk to nonscientists that information is properly displayed. And nowhere is this more important than when we are discussing temperature.  When we talk about weather and local temperatures its going be in Celsius (C) in the EU or degrees Fahrenheit (F) in America e.g. for the base temperature that NASA uses it’s 14.00 C or 57.20 F; but these are both relative measures and do not tell us how much heat (thermal energy) is there. To know that we must use Kelvin (K) and that would be 287.150 K and all three of those numbers 14.00 C, 57.20 F, and 287.150 K are exactly the same temperature, just using a different base. But if the current temperature is 15.00 C that is a 7.1% increase in C, a 3.1% increase in F and a .35% increase in K; so which one is real? The answer is .35% because Kelvin is the only one that measures the total energy!

To show this graphically Chart 8 was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percentage increase from when it was first measured in 1958 the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up 28.3% by August of 2017. That is a large change as anyone would agree.  Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature using the proper units Kelvin we find that the changes in global temperature are almost unmeasurable. The red plot, also starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere has varied by less than +/- .17%; while CO2 has increased by 28.3% which is over 80 times that of increase in temperature. So is there really a problem here?

Lastly, Chart 9 shows what a plot of the PCM model, in yellow, would look like from the year 1400 to the year 2900. This plot matches reasonably well with recorded history and fits the current NASA-GISS table LOTI data, in red, very closely, despite homogenization.  I do understand that this PCM model is not based on physics but it is also not some statistical curve fitting. It’s based on observed reoccurring patterns in the climate. These patterns can be modeled and when they are, you get a plot that works better than any of the IPCC’s GCM’s. If the real conditions that create these patterns do not change and CO2 continues to increase to 800 ppm or even 1000 ppm then this model will work well into the foreseeable future.  150 years from now global temperatures will peak at around 15.750 to 16.000 C and then will be on the downside of the long cycle for the next ~500 years.

The overall effect of CO2 reaching levels of 1000 ppm or even higher will be about 1.50 C which is about the same as that of the long cycle.  The Green plot on Chart 9 shows the observed pattern with no change in CO2 from the pre-industrial era of ~280 ppm. CO2 cannot affect global temperatures more than 1.500 C +/- no matter what the ppm level of CO2 is. The reason being that the CO2 sensitivity value is not 3.00 per doubling of CO2 but less than 1.00 C per doubling of CO2 as shown in more current scientific work and it’s a logistics curve not a log curve.

The purpose of this post is to make people aware of the errors inherent in the IPCC models so that they can be corrected. 

The Obama administration’s “need” for a binding UN climate treaty with mandated CO2 reductions in Europe and America was achieved as predicted at the COP12 conference in Paris in December 2015. To support this endeavor NASA was forced to show ever increasing global temperatures that will make less and less sense based on observations and satellite data which will all be dismissed or ignored.  Within a few years the manipulation will be obvious even to those without knowledge in the subject, but by then it will be to late the damage to the reputation of science will have been done.

In closing keep this in mind. The current panic generated by the government using political science is that the current global temperature of around 15.0O Celsius is an increase of 7.14% from the 1960’s when the global temperature was 14.0O Celsius; and that does seem like a lot. However those views would be in error as the actual increase in thermal energy, as measured by temperature, would be only .35% because we must use Kelvin not Celsius when working with heat energy. When we use kelvin the temperature goes from 287.15O K to 288.15O K which is only .35% not 7.14% about 1/20 of what is implied by the IPCC. What the IPCC shows is not technically wrong as much as it is extremely misleading to anyone without a very strong science background.

 

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers for science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected.

 

Cryptocurrencies & the Scam


There is a serious new fraud centering around Cryptocurrencies. There have been some trading platforms set up that are suddenly changing the rules in mid-game. People who have tried to sell t6hings like Monaco Card etc. on these platforms have discovered that their accounts are frozen because they do not have the money to pay people. The excuse is they need to now suddenly PROVE who they are to liquidate. The requirements are onerous and simply a DELAY tactic. These platforms are a FRAUD and should be reported to the SEC.

There was a company IGBE (International Gold Bullion Exchange) back in the early 1980s. They were offering selling gold bullion coins at the spot, which was below cost, but the catch was 90-day deferred delivery. They were actually not booking the gold and expected it to continue to decline.

Cryptocurrencies are no different from any other investment product. It is a misrepresentation that they offer an alternative to the dollar. No matter how much money one made on Bitcoin, they still have to sell it to realize that profit and how are they measuring that profit? In dollars of course.

Beware of the fraud in these trading platforms that are now suddenly freezing people’s accounts claiming security to prevent people from selling.

Very Swampian – Trey Gowdy: Samantha Power Did Not Make Unmasking Requests Attributed to Her…


Hmmm… obtuse swampy defense surfaces. CTH smells the strong residue of UniParty Flak and Countermeasures. Unfortunately, not necessarily surprising.

During an interview with Fox News Brett Baier, the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Trey Gowdy, claims former Ambassador Samantha Power did not initiate all the unmasking incidents attributed to her.  [Video Prompted – just hit play]

[04:35 Video] Brett Baier: “You are also looking, and have talked to the former Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power. We reported that she requested or her officer requested 260 plus efforts to unmask, in other words, get who was talking about picked up in surveillance. How did she answer that question? Why so many?”

Trey Gowdy: “Well, I’ll tell you broadly, uh Brett, I think if she was on your show, she would say those attempt to unmask may have been attributed to her. But they greatly exceed, by an exponential factor, the requests that she actually made.  So that’s her testimony, uh, and, and she was pretty emphatic.  The surveillance community, the intelligence community, has assigned this number of requests to her – her perspective, her testimony is: ‘they may be under my name, but I did not make those requests‘.”

“So, we’ve got to get to the bottom of that; if there was someone else making requests on behalf of a principal in the intelligence community we need to know that because we are getting ready to reauthorize a program, that’s really important to the country, but also has a masking component to it.”

   

Suspicious cat remains increasingly suspicious.

Sean Hannity Discusses Uranium One Scandal With Sara Carter and John Solomon…


Fox News host Sean Hannity reveals the stunningly explosive scandal he has been hinting toward for weeks and weeks. Joined once again by fellow explosive story seller Sara Carter, Hannity outlines the most incredible, scandalous, explosive, controversy, in history.

.

The thing is… It really is a scandal; and it really is a big deal; but when pitched by the same team that claim every scandal is the biggest deal in the history of big deals, well, the ‘chicken little factor’ comes into play.  Thus we accept the historic modus operandi behind controlled opposition leaks, stories and narratives from inside the swamp.

When everything is sold as a big deal, then nothing is a big deal.  As such the UniParty swamp shrugs with a subtle sneer and says:… yeah, so? …And your point?

But, wait…, wait,… So then Hannity said Bubba was getting paid – and Holder, Rosenstein, McCabe and Mueller were in charge of the investigation…

Good Morning, Little Comrades


By Tabitha Korol

 

Nikita S. Krushchev said, “Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.”

Vladmir Ilyich Lenin said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

 

The teachings of the Left include discrediting the Bible and replacing religion with social justice, dishonoring America and family, controlling the schools and curricula, and normalizing promiscuity. The Left has set about “deconstructing” (breaking down) the child’s psychology, removing every facet of life that provides the sense of security needed to create a mature, stable, responsible, independent, confident, and productive adult who will contribute to a free society. And it is through today’s schools that they are deconstructing our children in order to destroy the free society.     

  • Education reformers are damaging the children’s psyche with gender redefinition, creating dysfunctional adults with confused purpose.    
  • California lawmakers are proposing SB48; radicals, elitists and pseudo-experts are selling corruption disguised as freedom, promoting homosexual lifestyles while reducing morality and responsibility.     
  • Under Common Core, fine literature that hones our comprehension and creative skills, teaching initiative and courage, are replaced with dystopian literature that adds to their sadness, immorality, and overall impairment.  Mis-education is becoming un-education.
  • Cursive writing, known to enhance creativity, is removed from curricula, and restricts the student’s ability to read our founding documents, understand their rights, and be prone to subservience to a master regime. 
  • Common core began with higher standards, intentionally designed to frustrate and make for unhappy students.  Standards were then lowered across the board, to falsely lift self-esteem, reduce achievement and raise grades, but not in keeping with maturity and ability levels. 
  • Fatherless households lead to irresponsibility, rebellion, and crime; welfare policies encourage unmarried motherhood and incomplete families.
  • Schools discredit our Judeo-Christian roots and allegiance to our country, but dwell on Islam and socialism.   
  • There is growing disrespect for police and government.
  • Limiting free speech has prevented students from hearing opposing views, and the schools from providing a genuine education. They are fed ideas of Socialism/Marxism, globalism, and Islamism, and cannot reason, understand, or face ideas not within their realm of indoctrination. 
  • Schools are creating young fascists who are taught to march, rage and destroy, yet cannot articulate their purpose.
  • The future workforce is reduced through dysfunctional children and entitlement programs, and open to replacement by migrants who bring their tyrannical way of life with them. 

And now, another assault against the children has appeared in the offing, perhaps the most egregious. A mandate that first became evident in some English schools several years ago, now seen in some Canadian and American schools, is that children should be discouraged from having “best friends.”  England’s Thomas’s Battersea school has determined, with the agreement of some (but by no means all) parents and psychologists, that group bonding would encourage inclusion of all children and prevent rejection of the few.

The strength one gets from a best-friend relationship, if removed, may be sufficient to create enough despair where the individual will seek comfort in an ever-expanding government (the Marxist purpose). As with any detrimental Leftist concept, this technique is couched as an appeal for sympathy and compassion for those who are slow to bond with a best friend, but its stealth purpose is a means of assuring equalization by removing the securities of friendship.

Of course, not all children will immediately develop warm friendships, but should that be the norm to impose on others? Our schools have already lowered standards to meet the levels of lower achievers.  Should we also remove music and the arts with deference to the less gifted, or impose a veritable “eye for an eye” on behalf of those with poorer vision?  Would not our population be better served by a sensitive teacher to help all the children overcome their timidity and fears, learn the art of conversation, and develop the social graces needed to negotiate their future?  For school personnel to reduce every student to his or her lowest common denominator is a Marxist technique.  Already implemented in grading, it guarantees equality to the masses with obedience to the authorities, and where equality is imposed, freedoms are sacrificed. 

There are many quotes about the value of friends, four of which I thought prudent to include here:

“When it hurts to look back, and you’re scared to look ahead, you can look beside you and your best friend will be there” – Anonymous.

“My best friend is the one who brings out the best in me” – Henry Ford.

“Things are never quite as scary when you’ve got a best friend” – Bill Watterson. 

“A blessed thing it is for any man or woman to have a friend, one human soul whom we can trust   utterly, who knows the best and worst of us, and who loves us in spite of all our faults” – Charles Kingsley.

The benefits of friendship are many and unique.  We are social beings and friends fill a psychological need for survival, to cope with life’s trials and to remain inspired.  A friend is an eager companion, one who provides praise and kindly given criticism, and a way for us to learn trust and support.  Friends are there for comfort and to teach us about respect, sharing, thought, discussion and debate, analysis and problem-solving; simply put, they bring us happiness. Vital for our emotional wellbeing, best friends provide what parents and teachers cannot, particularly because the adults are less than perfect or may have, themselves, been deprived of best friends.    

The lack of close friends results in emotional distress – loneliness, sadness, emptiness, withdrawal – which can also take its toll on physical health.  It is known to be the leading reason for delinquency, school dropouts, antisocial personality disorder and suicide.  In adults, loneliness precipitates depression and alcoholism, and stress with sleep disorders and multiple medical problems. Psychologist John Cacioppo of the University of Chicago concluded that social skills are crucial for mental and physical wellbeing. 

In geographic situations that contribute to isolation, but where children may turn to books of imagination, challenge and rewards, achievement and travel, one might anticipate emotional success.  But today’s educational system has removed such books and replaced them with dystopian novels, where the characters are immersed in loneliness, sadness, defeat, and an environment bereft of reason. The stories provide situations of crises from which the characters may not always extricate themselves.  Therefore, with no escape and nowhere to vent, the child can lose his individuality, creativity and the chance to form valuable coping skills, and be drawn to any available group mentality, as well as drug abuse and alcoholism.

Robbing the children of the necessary human encounter and intimacy conforms to Leftist ideologies, which intend to destroy all social, economic, and political artifacts of classical liberalism. We see disintegration of the old society and family in the history of the Soviet Union, but, significantly, there are parallels in Islam’s jihadi warriors who emerge from emotional solitude and emptiness. The Arabic term, Asabiyah, defined in Kobrin’s The Jihadi Dictionary, is comparable to group consciousness, group-think, and the loss of individuality.  By destroying intimacy, empathy and compassion, the group creates the shame-honor culture, using passive-aggressive behavior of intimidation and scapegoating.  Happin is the meaning and purpose of life, the aim and end of human existence.

The child who is friendless and isolated, bereft of independence and initiative, responds with obedience, guilt, and lying to protect himself from being ostracized.  He may then be vulnerable to joining violent Leftist movements or submitting to Islamic radicalization. 

A civilization becoming a shadow of its former greatness – this is the gift of the Left.  

 

The ECB is now Worried Who Will Buy Government Debt if they Stop?


Mario Dragi Naples 10-3-2014

 

According to RELIABLE sources behind the curtain, the crisis in Spain led to a significant amount of selling Spanish debt to the European Central Bank (ECB) which has meanwhile swelled to 2.3 trillion Euro. There are problems now emerging in Italy and the appetite for government debt at low rates is not as strong as being portrayed. The ECB’s expansive economic stimulus package of buying government debt is NOT going to be stopped so easily. At the next ECB meeting on October 26th, the bond-buying program is most likely going to continue and at best they might claim to extend the bond purchase program with a modest reduction in volume. The ECB has not commented on this position, but there are rising concerns that member states will be unable to fund their spending without the ECB or a dramatic rise in interest rates demanded from the private sector.

The crisis building is all about how will the governments keep funding their debts?