Analysis of Global Temperature Trends, August, 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 the following Chart as the red plot labeled NASA. This plot is shown as a twelve month moving average to minimize the large monthly swings and better show trends; the scale for the temperatures is on the left. Second NOAA-ESRL Carbon Dioxide (CO2) values in Parts Per Million (PPM) which are shown in the following Chart as a black plot labeled NOAA. This plot is shown exactly as the data from NOAA is presented and there is no need for a moving average 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 significant adjustments to them called homogenization and came up with the estimated global temperature. Second they picked the period 1950 to 1980 (30 years) and averaged the values and came up with 14.00 degrees Celsius and make that their base.  Then they took the calculated temperature and subtracted the base from it which gave them the anomaly. The problem is that both the base and the anomaly are arbitrary.

Now that we have a base to work with we are going to add to the previous Chart three things. The first is a trend line of the growth in CO2 since that is the entire basis for climate change according to the government through NASA and NOAA. 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 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 this Chart 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 growing deviation reaching close to .5 degrees Celsius in 2014, 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 in a log function until recently where it reversed in 2015 and is now going up in a log function. That unexplained and major change in temperature direction appeared to have occurred between 2013 and 2014 and is the subject of this monthly paper.

The next Chart is developed from the raw data from NASS and NOAA as shown in the first Chart.  This plot was made first by adding ten years blocks of temperature and CO2 as indicated in the Chart 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 2005-2016 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 the Chart.  These blocks were picked to represent the entire period of time where we had both NASA temperature data and NOAA CO2 levels.

On the following Chart 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 2004-2016. We can speculate on how this change has happened but it cannot be said that the plot change is not real; however additional data over the next few years 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 2 years. Since both data sets have an R2 value of 1.00 the trend lines cannot be in question.

Before we get into a possible explanation to the drastic change from the Cyan data to the Red data that occurred in 2014 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. 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.  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.

The following Chart shows the PCM which is 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) also observed in the NASA data as the base. 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.  This short cycle is clearly observed in the raw NASA data in the LOTI table going back to 1880. Lastly, there is CO2 currently adding about .0079O Celsius per year so together they all basically wash out at -.0039O C per year, which matched 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 as the actual model uses many more places than what are shown here.

When using the 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 the next Chart. 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 consider 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 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 one Chart which will contain: NASA’s table LOTI global temperature estimates, NOAA’s actual CO2 values, the CO2 model projections, the PCM model global temperature plot, Hansen’s Scenario B 1988 global temperature 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 carbon based fuels be eliminated since they are responsible for the global temperature level  going up.  As previously started 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.  This Chart views a good overview of the current situation showing all the facts and all the projections.

This Chart contains no manipulation of the data 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.  A subject not broached here is that of the NASA homogenization process itself and the base period from 1950 to 1980. 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.

The next Chart will be a look at the period from 2010 to 2020 so we can see the detail of the past few years 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 the Chart one at the top of the Chart which is a black oval around the CO2 levels for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and part of 2016 and it’s very obvious that there has been very little change, maybe 7 ppm or about 1.9%. Then at the bottom of the Chart is another black oval around the NASA global temperature levels for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and part of 2016 and its very obvious that there has been a very 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. Worse it appears that this current strange upward trend will continue as the values shown here are based on a 12 month moving average and the current values being published by NASA were unusually high starting in 2014 and therefore I expected the NASA plot to be well over 15.00 Celsius before the end of 2015 and that is exactly what happened. After COP21 the need for Fake Warming was no longer needed and so we are now seeing a downward trend developing. With the new administration we may see the end of data manipulation from NOAA and NASA and a return to real science political science.

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 trends and focusing only on CO2 the models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed.

Lastly, the next chart 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 understand that this model is not based on physics but it is also not true 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 conditions that create these patterns do not change and CO2 continues to increase to 800 ppm or even 1000 ppm than 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 the Chart 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 under 1.00 C per doubling of CO2 as shown in more current scientific work.

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.

 

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.

Understanding Cycles


Cycle targets that we provide are TURNING POINTS. This means an event normally takes place at that time be it a high or low. If ideally something should produce a low but does not and produces a high, it is typically extending the cycle to the next TURNING POINT. It looks at this time that the next important turning point is the week at the start of Sept. There is of course the Fed meeting. But then there is trouble among debt ridden nations and then there is Iran.

Keep in mind that for some strange reason, geopolitical events tend to also happen in the Aug/Sept time frame. Besides war, there was even 911. On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated. World War I began officially 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. It was August when things really got underway. World War II began when Germany attacked Poland on September 1, 1939. Most stock market crash events take place after highs in early Sept such as 9/3/1929. Even the 1987 Crash 10/19/1987.What it is about this time of the year who knows. Where December is the time to be jolly, Sept is the time for chaos. Never look for a particular event high/low. It is a TURNING POINT that sometimes can invert and produce the opposite largely because everything is connected. It is always an action/reaction.

Cycle of Knowledge


QUESTION: Hello,

I am a French Astrophysicist and I end up watching with great interest a TV story about Martin Armstrong. As a scientist I am really curious and keen to build new connection between our way of describing the Universe and the bias introduced by our own vision and history. Hence I was wondering if the algorithm that Martin has developed was ever tested on human knowledge discovery or if this is something that could be interesting to do.

Kind Regards,

IA

ANSWER: Absolutely. There is cycle to knowledge that I have also encountered and found fascinating. We reach period of knowledge and then we seem to lose it all and reboot. Society before the Dark Age knew the Earth was round and not flat.  For example, if we look at the ancient Greeks, the knew the Earth was round and not flat. They burned people like Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) alive at the stake for claiming the world was round and it revolved around the sun instead of the other way around. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) argued in his writings that the Earth was spherical, because of the circular shadow it cast on the Moon, during a lunar eclipse. Another reason was that some stars visible from Egypt are not seen further north. Aristotle wrote:

The evidence of the senses further corroborates this. How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind — straight, gibbous, and concave — but in eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth’s surface, which is therefore spherical.

Again, our observations of the stars make it evident, not only that the earth is circular, but that it is a circle of no great size. For quite a small change of position to south or north causes a manifest alteration of the horizon. There is much change, I mean, in the stars which are overhead, and the stars seen are different, as one moves northward or southward. Indeed there are some stars seen in Egypt and in the neighborhood of Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions; and stars, which in the north are never beyond range of observation, in those regions rise and set.

All of which goes to show not only that the earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere of no great size: for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be so quickly apparent. Hence one should not be too sure of the incredibility of the view of those who conceive that there is continuity between the parts about the pillars of Hercules and the parts about India, and that in this way the ocean is one.

(Aristotle, “On the Heavens,” Book II, Chapter 14, The Works of Aristotle, Oxford University Press; pp. 297-298.)

Aristotle, on the other hand, disagreed with the Atomic theory developed by Democritus (460—370 BC) in 465BC. He believed that instead of being matter being made of tiny particles (atoms) that they were all fundamentally air, fire, water, and earth. The Atomic theory was actually first proposed by Leucippus (c 5th cent. BC), and was then adopted by Democritus. The Atomic theory stated that “The universe is composed of two elements: the atoms and the void in which they exist and move.” According to Democritus atoms were miniscule quantities of matter, which he believed could not be destroyed, differ in size, shape and temperature. They were also in constant movement yet could not be seen with the naked eye. He believed that there are an infinite number of atoms.

Then there was the Alexandrian philosopher Eratosthenes (c. 276BC–195/194BC) who actually estimated how large the Earth was. Eratosthenes learned that on midsummer day (June 21) in the town of Syene in southern Egypt, the noontime Sun was reflected in a deep well for it was directly overhead on that one day. Eratosthenes in Alexandria which was about 5000 stadia north of Syene. In Alexandria the Sun on the corresponding date did not quite reach zenith (perfectly overhead), and vertical objects would cast a short shadow. Hence, Eratosthenes calculated that the direction of the noon Sun differed from the zenith by an angle that was 1/50 of the circle, that is, 7. 2 degrees. With this realization, ,Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth to be 250,000 stadia.

 I have stated before that after Rome fell, the financial capitol of the world moved to Constantinople in Turkey. After the Byzantine Empire fell, that financial capitol moved to India. It was because of the importance of India that Columbus set sail on a mission to India based upon a wrong calculation of the size of the earth. Columbus relied upon the calculations of the earth from Ptolemy. Ptolemy influenced Strabo who in turn reduced the 250,000 Stadia of Eratosthenes to 180,000, and then stated that half of that distance came to just 70,000 stadia, making India reachable by sailing West. So India has played a very important role for Europe bumped into the Americas by trying to sail to India.

This is only one example of how there has been a cycle to knowledge. It is by no means linear. Knowledge is built from experience. Thus, we have to go through the business cycle to advance. This was in part included in Schumpter’s explanation of the business cycle that there are waves of innovation. He did not see what I see studying history that there is also a peak and then a decline to the level of knowledge as well and it is not linear as Schumpter imagined from a small data set.

Dark Age v Renaissance


QUESTION: Hi Martin,

Thank you for everything that you do.  Concerning the post, The Long-Term Cycle of Monetary Crisis, you describe the corruption of power that leads to monetary crisis and the subsequent reform: the thread that repeats throughout history.

I was wondering if you could contrast this with the periods of history where there is a renaissance/age of enlightenment, and the common tread there (is it the people revolting, which is the only way that corruption of power is defeated?).

Many Thanks Again,

Danny

ANSWER: Oh yes. This is part of the Cycle of Civilization but now you are at the 309+ year level where major change begins to appear. The big one comes on the Sixth Wave of the 309.6 Year level. This is the only reason I do what I do. I have written many times that when this wave peaks in 2032, when we come to a crossroads. We either regress contracting into authoritarianism, then break-up into a fragmented feudal type system of local tribes basically, or we can perhaps crash and burn, but then see the light and we make a major technological leap forward.

Even at each 51.6 year wave culmination there is a major structural reset. It is my HOPE that if we reach a level of understanding how and why things work, then we have a shot and perhaps pushing back and we can make do what Neil Armstrong said upon landing on the moon: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

This is the third set of the Sixth Wave. This is why I say if it was just me, I am ready- Beam Me Up Scotty. I have my posterity to think about. So I am trying to do what I can. I bumped into cycles in the middle of the night. They found me. I never approached this as a theory to go out and prove. Most major discoveries in science have been by accident.

The Renaissance really began when Constantinople fell to the Turks. Then the scholars fled to the West bringing the known with them in 1453. Note the year. They began schools and started to teach people all the knowledge they had forgotten. There were some who were starting to reintroduce mathematics like Fibonacci (c. 1175 – c. 1250) during the 13th century. But it was the schools that opened following the fall of Constantinople that brought educate back to Europe. Hence, Columbus was exposed to that knowledge and he realized the Earth was round. He set sail in 1492.

The full Age of Enlightenment truly began with the confrontation that cycles existed. It all began with the discovery in 1772 of a frozen intact woolly rhinoceros . Then intact woolly-mammoth followed in Siberia. Suddenly people were stunned. This meant that you could be frozen with food still in you mouth. This inspired tremendous investigation into gravity to the cyclical nature of comets.

The Dark Age is the fragmentation of society reverting back to where we see nations breaking up unto regions and then all the way back to city states. The  Renaissance is typically inspired by the rediscovery of lost knowledge. This is really an extensive subject. I have written a book on this entire topic documenting everything from math and science to political rise and fall. I am hiring more editors to try to get out several books that have been backlogged for way too long.

A New Park has been set up in Macedonia, Ohio Honoring Veterans


For the past 2 years my American Legion Nordonia Hills Post 801 with the help of Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 6768 and the city of Macedonia has worked on establishing a Veterans Memorial Park dedicated to honor all veterans.  It has now completed the first phase of the Park.  The AL Post Commander and Chairperson of the committee established to create this park first created a team of motivated veterans.  The team raised about 40% of the estimated $364,000 required to construct the entire park.  These funds allowed us to design and build the park’s main entrance starting in May 2017.  Construction was completed on September 15, 2017, POW/MIA Recognition Day.   The next day, September 16,  the first part of this projected was dedicated.

There were three monuments displaced, this is the Main One to all veterans.

The other two are one for the War on Terror and one for Vietnam

We had a band and many local politicians as well as three Former Green Berets as speakers. Colonel David Taylor (center), Lt Colonel Howard Pearce (Right) and myself (Left).

The Crowd

Nordonia Hills Veterans Memorial Park

 

 

USTR Robert Lighthizer Outlines U.S. Trade Priorities – Trump Administration Willing to Confront WTO Multinationals…


In about a week Round #3 of NAFTA renegotiations begin in Canada.  Dispute settlement and country of origin rules are widely anticipated to be key points of disagreement.

For those who follow trade and economics closely, the latest Trump trade policy outline from U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is buckets of good news. President Trump, Commerce Secretary Ross and USTR Lighthizer willing to confront the World Trade Organization (WTO), the epicenter of multinational economics and globalism.

.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The WTO dispute settlement system is “deficient” and has often ruled in favor of free trade that overlooks details of a trade agreement, U.S. trade envoy Robert Lighthizer said on Monday.

Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Lighthizer, a trade lawyer, made clear that the administration was poised to push for major changes to the global trade system during upcoming meetings of the Geneva-based trade body. WTO member countries will meet in Buenos Aires on Dec 10.

U.S. President Donald Trump called the World Trade Organization a “disaster” during his presidential campaign and his administration has sought to unilaterally go after countries like China that it thinks is breaking trade rules.

“There are a number of issues on which there is pretty broad agreement that the WTO dispute settlement understanding is deficient,” said Lighthizer, highlighting problems with WTO staffing and transparency.

“The United States sees numerous examples where the dispute settlement process over the years has really diminished what we’ve bargained for or imposed obligations that we do not believe we agree to,” he said.

He added: “There have been a lot of cases in the trade remedies laws where in my opinion the decisions are really indefensible.”

Since its launch in 1995 the WTO has become the main venue for resolving trade disputes between countries. The Trump administration has begun to launch trade investigations under statutes seldom used in the WTO era, including a “Section 301” probe of China’s intellectual property practices.

Lighthizer did not threaten a U.S. withdrawal from the WTO, but emphasized his own dissatisfaction with some of its rulings.

In a letter in March, the Trump administration made clear that U.S. law supersedes WTO rules — a view that could be invoked should Congress adopt policies that are later challenged by other member countries as violating WTO rules.

“We’ve had tax laws struck down, we’ve had other provisions where the WTO has taken…the decision they were going to strike down something they thought shouldn’t happen, rather than looking at the agreement as a contract,” he said.

Lighthizer emphasized that the Trump administration was reviewing all trade agreements and would seek to renegotiate those that did not benefit U.S. workers and businesses.

“I believe, and I think the president believes, that we must be proactive,” he said, “We must demand reciprocity in home and international markets. So expect change, expect new approaches and expect action.” (link)

China a Different Breed of Government


QUESTION: Why do you say China will replace the West when their government is still the communist party?

ANSWER: China is no more communist than Donald Trump. There is a cycle of life through which we all pass including governments. China revolted against communism. The government may retain that name, but they are no communist in that sense of the word.

I have explained before that Russian communism was concerned about what you thought where as China adopted the tall poppy policy. If Stalin thought you would be a threat to his power you were killed. In China, you could think what you wanted provided you did not step up publicly.

China is not at the same place in the cycle of life as we see in Europe and America. Therefore, China is on the rise and will replace the West which is burdened with socialism they cannot possibly afford.  China learned its lessons and is moving forward despite the name of the government party.

If things got worse in the West, I would apply to China for political asylums.

Judge Suspended for 30 days for Wearing a Trump Hat


 

A judge in Ontario, Canada was suspended for 30-day without pay for wearing a Trump hat – Make America Great Again. This certain raises the question would he have suffered the same penalty had he worn a Hillary hat?

New Zealand & the Hunt for Taxes


QUESTION:  Hi Martin,

Firstly I appreciate your insight into world events. I don’t see anyone else coming even close to what you do.

In New Zealand we are facing an election and taxation is a big topic. Labour on the left has appointed a new, young, female leader who has wide appeal. She is hedging on Labour’s taxation policy but it’s known they favour capital gains taxes – business, property, inheritance, you name it. I saw an article that Illinois is experiencing massive flight of wealth due to taxes. Will people run out of options for places to go or is the world in general headed towards mass taxation?

Thanks for your time.

PJ

ANSWER: Yes,  Jacinda Ardern is a desperate attempt to raise Marxism to its former glory. The Labour Party fell to below 30% in the polls so they put a young girl up front to gain votes. It is also true that Illinois is a complete disaster. I wrote about how they should just dissolve the state because they cannot even go bankrupt on their government pensions. It is true that every five minutes someone leaves Illinois. The most recent poll revealed that 47% of people in Illinois wanted to leave the state. Property values will collapse in Illinois because there is a mass exodus and no buyers unless they are oblivious to what is taking place. This is how Rome fell from a population of 1 million to 15,000. People just walked away from their property.

Marxism has destroyed the world economy and caused the deaths of countless millions of people all for a theory that has never worked. We are facing the darkest hours in this collapse of socialism. Make no mistake, there are plenty of people who have been brainwashed to believe it is the rich causing this rather than the greed of politicians. It is the government pensions in Illinois that has destroyed the State. They prefer to say the rich do not pay their fair share but government always needs more and more. So that “share” never ends until it reaches 100%.

This will come to a head most likely in violence and it is highly likely it will erupt in civil unrest and even war over the course of the next few years. Unfortunately, this is the Crash & Burn. It is just not sustainable. Economic growth declines and the standard of living for everyone collapses. It is just how we give birth to the next era.

Can Our Model Forecast Private Companies & Industries?


 

QUESTION: Hello. I am a business consultant working for a global consulting company and have a client that is in the transportation sector that would benefit from your research. I have been advising the client with regard to their business and IT strategy, however would also like to introduce them to Armstrong and possibly subscribe to your services.

A few questions first:
1) Are your models customizable to facilitate forecasting of domestic fuels consumption?
2) If yes, what is required to initiate a discussion around this type of service?
3) Would it be possible to speak to a person regarding your standard services and any custom modeling?
Kind Regards,
KR

ANSWER: Yes. We are re-instituting on the Institutional Level the ability to input even the sales of any company and the model will then provide the full forecast with timing and price projections. Therefore, it can be tailored to any company and industry.