Schools Let Millions of Students Skip Classes for Climate Strike to Save the Planet

144K subscribers

BP Forced to Sell Assets to Appease the European Climate Hysteria

COMMENT: This morning blog question. I concur with ROM. Here’s a perfect example.
BP has just sold all its oil and gas assets in Alaska to cut its carbon footprint in order to be consistent with the Paris Accord. This is a needless sale of assets caused by an ‘Act of Extortion-The Paris Accord’ against the shareholders [owners] of BP under the force of false premise concerning climate change-their inability to substantiate their presumptions and bias about climate change and what’s causing it including their attempts to overrule anything to the contrary to their stated presumptions. The company that purchased the assets said it is going to invest more heavily in the fields than what BP had planned to invest resulting in increased emissions. So did the sale result in fewer emissions? No. What it did was rob the shareholders of BP what was rightly theirs to own, manage, create employment, benefit the local economy and receive a return on their investments.
BP’s current management has blindly or calculatingly did what’s politically expedient for the Brand and in doing so fell prey to the hysterical hyperbole of climate change rhetoric that is presumptuous, prejudice and grossly misleading. They mismanaged these assets and should be held accountable.
I own a small number of shares in BP.

REPLY: It is truly amazing how this group has turned global warming into a complete crisis that is causing total chaos everywhere. They are intent on ending the industrial revolution and have faked the evidence. As long as governments see a profit in their manipulations, they are enticed by the money dangling before them. BP sold assets in an industry that constitutes their core business because of the people behind the Paris Accord. The implementation of those demands is going to fundamentally undermine car production in Europe as well. But politicians will not listen until the damage becomes self-evident, by which time it will be too late. This is part of the shift from the West to the East and why China will become the financial capital of the world post-2032.


Weather Was Also Extremely Volatile During ’30s

COMMENT: You have no proof that the extreme weather from hot to cold is normal. It is humans who have created this with pollution.


REPLY: You seem to WANT to believe whatever the people say and demand proof from me but not from them. Our models are based on raw data. They are not adjusted to produce a predetermined conclusion in order to get grants from the government to support more taxes.

You are showing that you already have made up your mind. They count on people like you for their climate change agenda, which is just a front for a socialist takeover of society. You clearly ignore all the articles that show there is MORE ice — not less.

If I had to choose between death or living in a world of oppression, a world you seem to want to impose on everyone, I would prefer death. I have been behind the Berlin Wall before it fell. You have no idea what these people will do. I fear for our children and their children for they will NEVER know the freedoms that once existed.

There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence of human-induced climate change. The climate has ALWAYS moved cyclically and changed. It has NEVER remained the same even from one decade to the next. If you hate humanity so much, then set an example for your group and voluntarily commit suicide to reduce the plague of human existence you seem to maintain. I suspect it is not your death you would offer, but anyone who disagrees with your view.

That is what always unfolds and ends up with blood in the streets. Indeed, history repeats. They are just using climate change instead of outright demanding the confiscation of assets from anyone who has more than you.

I have friends who were born behind the Berlin Wall. They fled to the West when they could. They all tell the same story. What they fled from is taking hold right here and now. It has followed them.

This, I believe, is part of the cycle that warns of the fall of Western society by 2032. It gives me no pleasure in writing that.


Do the Numbers Really Matter or is it Just a Feeling?

Just a little curious after reading your blog on ‘Can Anyone Really Influence Elections?’ , I was wondering if your model actually showed that India would get a majority mandate to the ruling dispensation a second time even though the Economy had been growing weaker over the last few years especially post 2016 (in their first term). From what I understand after reading your blogs is that Economy is a major factor/force in deciding people’s verdict. Would you say that its the ‘ Right ruling parties’ getting dominant globally or that ‘Economy comes after Politics’ that’s the reason?

Many thanks in anticipation,

US (India)

ANSWER: Yes, but the real economy was declining. They can play with the numbers all they want, but the real trend is set in motion by the true “feeling” of the people. The bulk of the people do not listen to the financial news or have any clue as to the numbers the government produces. They vote based upon what they actually see. This is why Trump and Brexit won. Playing with the numbers and trying to manipulate polls does not work. The truth will always surface. That is what makes the trend move. It is why Quantitative Easing has failed. It is why the decline in the economy of India is being blamed on anyone but the government. Canceling the currency in a declining wave was a disastrous move on the part of the government.

Reversals – Energy – A Different Dimension

QUESTION: Hi Marty… I’ve been reading your blog for several years now.

I’ve been trying to understand the basics about your reversal system is with no luck.
Yet I’ve been trading stocks with only simple trend lines for years using basic tech A.

PS I still don’t even understand how the Federal Reserve works either… they don’t teach you that stuff in high school!

Yes, I’ve watched every video or post on reversals on your site and not getting it. I know I’m not that smart but I’m not that dumb either!

Can you pretty please post a very clear layman’s chart using a stock or a commodity with prices like gold to show us dummies so we “GET IT”

Thanks Marty….

A dumb Canuck

ANSWER: Look, the reversals are a black box and I keep it that way along with the Schema Frequencies. This is a physics solution to how the world ticks. It is not a simple moving average, stochastics, or one-dimensional formula. It is highly complex and many people have tried to reverse engineer it but have failed. They may think they have come close but they cannot account for the next number.

Traditionally, economists argue there is a business cycle, but nobody can forecast the cycle. Therefore, with tools of interest rates, taxes, and money supply, governments can manipulate the business cycle. The problem is that even Larry Summers admitted that he cannot forecast the economy. This stems from the problem of their failure to understand cyclical movement,to begin with. The Schema Frequencies resolve the complexity of cyclical movement.

The Energy indicator is against based upon physics and it exposes the true opposing forces at work irrespective of the superficial price levels. The key to this is looking for the divergence when prices are rising and Energy is declining. This is a warning signal that such a rally is NOT sustainable. Likewise, when prices are falling but Energy begins to rise, once more there is a divergence warning that the decline is losing energy and a low is near. Just look at this daily chart on gold. You can see the divergence as Energy peaked well in advance.

These indicators are not your standard variety of analysis. They are entirely beyond the one-dimensional analysis world for the markets are not only all connected globally, but the entire system is fractal. So we have a fractal relationship within each market and then a fractal relationship on a global perspective.

The models do all the calculations that are humanly impossible to carry out before a market even closes. It allows us to stand back and see the overview which then reveals the trends. Many have tried to prevent our forecasts. They have tried to ignore what this computer has been doing in hopes that I will die and that will be the end of it. I see this as a means to an end — to help society manage the business cycle without destroying our human rights and our freedom. I have to protect this because there are those who would use it behind the curtain for personal gain against the world.

Sometimes in life, we stumble upon something like the discovery of penicillin. It has saved lives. People just accept that and do not need to know the formula behind it.

The progressive Bill Gates on the dire need for World De-Population, their goal under one billion by 2050!

This is an incredible story of how we’ve got to this point of actually watching Bill Gates showing that, albeit indirectly, there are way too many people in the world which than implies de-population. At TED2010, Bill Gates unveiled his vision for the world’s energy future, describing the need for “miracles” to avoid planetary catastrophe from CO2 and the necessary goal of Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050. Nine years after TED2010 Petsche and his squad are proposing the first steps to making Brecksville a sustainable community with no need need for cars and we will all be using bicycles to go to work and do our shopping.  Make no bones about this as this is the progressive plan!

Watch the first 12 minutes of this clip and listen to Gates talk about CO2 reductions and then read the rest of this review.

This perceived problem of CO2 had its beginnings in the United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment, which met at Stockholm from June 5th to June 16th 1972. What happens over the next thirty years can be directly traced to this conference! The previous Video and the following discussion highlight only a few of the major events that have led many to believe that all life on earth is threatened by there being too many people a principle first proposed by Thomas Malthus, an early English economist. Malthus published and essay in 1798 titled An Essay on the Principle of Population where he proposed that sooner or later population growth will be checked by famine and disease, leading to what is known as a Malthusian catastrophe; which later technology prevented from happening.

The 1972 Stockholm conference led to European studies on the role of Carbon Dioxide and the environment such as the SCOPE 13 The Global Carbon Cycle paper published in 1979 by the Scientific Committee On Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) in Paris. This paper showed very dire results for increased levels of Carbon Dioxide, and reignited the old Malthusian catastrophe concept.

In conjunction with the Europeans climate work a request was made to the National Academy of Science (NAS) to study the issue. In 1979 the completed study, now called the Charney Report, agreed that there was a problem and justified their conclusions by defining a key number need in the science. They looked at the work of a young scientist working at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) James E. Hansen’s high estimate of 4.0 C and added .5 degrees C to it for uncertainty. Then they took another scientist working a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Syukuro Manabe’s low estimate of 2.0 C and subtracted .5 from it for uncertainty. Lastly they average the two which then gives us a 1.5 C Low value, an 3.0 C expected value and a 4.5 C high value as the CO2 sensitivity values which are what are still used today thirty five years later. Hansen and Manabe were the only two that had climate models that were reviewed in the Charney Report and Hansen’s paper was not officially published at the time.

James Edward Hansen while at NASA, was the driver for the US government’s push for control of energy. Hansen gave a presentation to the US congress in 1988 where he showed them what he thought would happen to Global Climate if we did not stop putting Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into the earth’s atmosphere. In the original 1988 paper, three different scenarios were used; A, B, and C. They consisted of hypothesised future concentrations of the main greenhouse gases – CO2, CH4, CFCs etc. together with a few scattered volcanic eruptions. Essentially, a high and low estimate that bracketed the expected value (B) which Hansen specifically stated that he thought as the “most plausible”. Hansen used the 1979 NAS report as justification for the logic used to build these three scenarios.

Shortly thereafter we had the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was set up in 1988 by the United Nations (UN) at the request of two of its other organizations; the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) formed in 1950, and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) set up after the Stockholm Declaration in 1972. The IPCC’s mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change, specifically Anthropogenic Climate Change. A key point here is the IPCC was never charged with proving whether the Anthropogenic assertion true or not it was only charged with determining how bad it would be; in essence assuming it was true.

The next major event was the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth-Summit), held in Rio-de-Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program called UN Agenda 21. This was a comprehensive blueprint for creating a “sustainable” world which went from world governance to local school boards and zoning boards which meant that “every” aspect of a person’s life was to be controlled by UN Agenda 21. This program based on Carbon Dioxide rising world temperatures beyond the point where humans could maintain a civilization completed all that was needed for implementation and we were off on a Quest to save the planet.

Enter Al Gore who while in Congress became interested in Climate Change and he was instrumental in getting Hansen funding from Congress to study the problem of Climate Change which was known as Global Warming back then. Gore was very active in the environmental movement while he was Bill Clinton’s VP. Gore continued to promote the movement, after leaving office, and his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” was released in 2006; this documentary was a story about how the burning of fossil fuels were destroying the planet. It seemed to be targeted at young adults without the education to discern truth from fiction and it was very successful in achieving negative awareness on the subject. Unfortunately, the message in that documentary was not factually correct and appeared to be only an emotional appeal to support the regulation of Carbon Emissions’ (CO2) in some form of Carbon Tax.

An interesting fact, Al Gore was one of the investors that had helped set up a Carbon Trading exchange in Chicago along with a then young Barack Obama (on the board of the major investor The Joyce Foundation located in Chicago) that they named the Chicago Carbon Exchange CCX in 2003. When the American Clean Energy and Security Act was not passed by the US Senate in 2009 the CCX exchange folded the following year, 2010. Gore had been very vocal on this subject and if HR 2454 had been passed by the US Congress Gore would have become very wealthy; so the question is was his involvement in the movement because he believed what he was promoting or because what he was promoting would have made him very wealthy?

This brings us to Bill Gates with his Gates Foundation that has along with Al Gore taken up the cause of stopping Anthropogenic Climate Change which they believe will cause the planet to overheat and create a mass extinction and possibly even ending human life. This movement has now taken the look of a religion and therefore no debate allowed. A few years ago Bill Gates gave a presentation to a select group of supporters where as part of that presentation he showed described a simple equation to show what was needed to reduce Carbon Dioxide to save the planet.

The Gate’s equation is CO2 = P x S x E x C which is the amount of CO2 emitted is equal to the number of people (P), times the service they use (S), times the energy per service (E), times the CO2 per unit of energy. Gates after explaining this equation goes on to explain that we have to get the CO2 value to near “zero” which means that some of these numbers need to get close to zero. Gates doesn’t use any numbers and then he goes on to other subjects in the presentation.

The following numbers represent the estimated 2014 values for the US for the logic Gates presents and which we can then plug into Gate’s equation. GDP is around $18.0 trillion, there are probably 320 million people in the country, the energy we use is almost 100 quad and we produce 0.0000000663 metric tons of CO2 per BTU used. Multiplying all the values as shown in the following table gives 6.525 million metric tons of CO2 which is about what the US emits at present.   Now looking at these numbers how are we going to going to get 6.525 million metric tons of CO2 even close to zero?


To properly look at Gates’ equation we must look at how all the variables, that he identifies, interact with each other to create Carbon Dioxide. Since this is a very simple equation it was easy to make four tables, one for each variable, and then vary the values to see how they changed the result. Each of the following tables is for one of Gates’ equation, for example the first one is Population (P). We see in the first line that population is 320,090,073 (the second column) and it’s identified as 100% (the first column) which is today’s number, and that using the Gates equation as shown in the table above equals 6,526.0 million metric tons of CO2. The next line down is 98% and each line down is reduced by 2% until we get to 80% in the last line. That represents a 20% reduction in the population to 256,072,058 people and 5,221.8 million metric tons of CO2.

The next three table for S, E and C follow the same logic although the reducing percentage is different for each. What we have then are 20% fewer people, 30% less GDP, 40% less energy and 50% less Carbon Dioxide if those levels can be obtained. The fifth table at the bottom of the page is the summary of the other four showing that if all those objectives were achieved Carbon Dioxide would be reduced by 83.2% to 1,096,368,000 million metric tons of CO2. I think that the reader can see that this draconian reduction would not be supported by the citizens.


The average person burns enough food in their body to release about 328.7 Kg of CO2 per year; so if there are 320 million people that’s 105.1 million metric tons per year. Unfortunately to get to zero emissions means there can be no people by definition. Further it’s obvious that the number of people is the driving force in the equation. But even that level (with no economy and no energy) is way more than Gates would like as we are still emitting 105.1 million metric tons of CO2 per year. So how does he propose to get to Zero without getting rid of almost all the people?

The Globalists like Gore, Gates, Soros, and others know that it’s not possible to get to zero human emissions as we showed in these tables. However they do want to reduce the world population to something close to 500,000,000 which is a 92.9% reduction which is not going to happen without a fight; not with 9 out of 10 people being eliminated!

The purpose of this paper and tables is to show that it isn’t possible to do what Gates and his friends say needs to be done — so what is their real motive if not to get rid of lots of people? Or maybe just like Jonathon Gruber they just think we are not smart enough to know they are trying to do something really really bad?

What is the real reason why we need to stop using carbon based fuels?

Over the past several decades a great deal of international effort has been undertaken to show that anthropogenic (man made) CO2 is causing climate change on the planet by raising the planet’s temperature. The increased temperatures will then change the world’s climate patterns which will then result in the melting of the world’s glaciers, increased storms and probably loss of valuable crop lands by rising sea levels. The implied result on the world’s civilizations will be catastrophic and therefore there will be a significant loss of life from both the climate change and the probable wars that will be fought over dwindling resources. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been given the primary task of showing how this will happen by the United Nations (UN) and this research is being done primarily by NASA and NOAA in the United States and the Met Office and Hadley Center in the United Kingdom.

To show what is happening on a planetary scale very complex computer models have been constructed by some of the world’s best scientists and those models have shown that the temperature of the planet will hit unprecedented levels possibly as soon as 2050. To prevent this from happening the “United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, having met at Stockholm from 5 to 16 June 1972, having considered the need for a common outlook and for common principles to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment” established a set of principles and an international forum the first of which was held Rio de Janiero in June 1992 and then later Kyoto in 1997 where goals for a reduction in the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels primarily from petroleum, coal and natural gas were agreed to by the parties. Efforts to date have been totally unsuccessful and CO2 levels have now reached 400 ppm and the level is increasing at an accelerating rate that is currently at ~2 ppm per year.

The first major program to began the task of changing how the entire world would adapt to the required reductions in Carbon Dioxide was made public at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program called Agenda 21. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation, and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference. Agenda 21 is a 300-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into 4 sections that was published in book form the following year:

Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.

Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.

Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and industry, and workers; and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.

Section IV: Means of Implementation: implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms.

The goal of UN Agenda 21 is to create a world economic system that equalizes world incomes and standards of living and at the same time reduces Carbon Dioxide levels back to the levels that existed prior to the industrial age of ~300 ppm. We are now at 400 ppm and growing at 2 ppm per year and at that rate we will reach 500 ppm in 2050 at which point the UN Climate models say we will have an ecological disaster. There are only two ways to achieve this reduction back to the ideal ~300 ppm and they are not mutual exclusive. One is to reduce the world’s population and the other is to either reduce energy consumption or make a switch to non carbon burning fuels such as solar PV or wind turbines. Agenda 21 is the driver for all the sustainability programs that are being implemented at this time; which means that if the belief that Carbon Dioxide is the ultimate reason for changes in global climate is not true that untold trillions of dollars and massive economic restructuring would be unwarranted.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) we are using about 500 quad of energy world wide right now of which maybe 15% is classed as sustainable, and there are estimated to be 7.0 billion people on the planet. That means that 425 quad of energy usage is not sustainable and the world’s population could reach 9.0 billion by 2050. By then we would be using 900 quad of energy of which probably 650 quad will not be sustainable if nothing major changes. The goal of Agenda 21 is therefore to find ways to reduce the number of people or significantly reduce how much energy they use. Carbon taxes and the redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries are the means to achieve this but there are no engineers on the planet that would say it would be possible to produce 650 quad of sustainable generating capacity in 35 years (335% more than now), especially since no real effort has yet been made.

To put this in perspective if we could make 250 quad of sustainable energy annually that would mean that we could only have maybe 1 billion people on the planet and even those would not be able to live as well as we in the US do now. Prior to the 2008 collapse the US used about 100 quad and had 300 million people. If the goal is 250 quad and 1 billion people that means a 25% reduction in the standard of living for the advanced socialites. Since this is what is required to achieve the stated goals of preventing 500 ppm from happening it’s obvious that there is a major problem brewing.

There are a great number of leaders in government and industry had belief that if we don’t do what was described in the previous paragraph e.g. reduce the population of the planet to under one billion that we will all die. Some think we can make more than 250 Quad of sustainably energy and others think we need to drastically reduce the population. Both of these views are will lead to war for obvious reasons hence the need to educate the citizens as to the real reasons that things are on the path they are!

Do your own research and you will find that all that is presented here is 100% true, in fact there is much more that you will find that I have not put here as it is way too much for any one to start with. Good luck and God bless you and lets hope they realize they are wrong before its to late.

However, what the IPCC tells us is Pure BS as the causal link from CO2 to global temperature is very weak as shown in the following chart which shows the percent increase of CO2 verse global temperatures using NOAA and NASA numbers with no manipulation. By 2050 we might add one degree to the global temperature but certainly no more.

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott Bloom

26.4K subscribers

Is global warming real? Have any such predictions been established scientifically? Would massive “carbon” taxes and other controls put America and the world—especially the poor—at great risk? At this special event, geoscientist and astrophysicist Willie Soon separates fact from fiction in the global warming debate. He explains why the forecasts from CO2 climate models have been so wrong—and why solar influences on clouds, oceans, and wind drive climate change, not CO2 emissions. Stanford University physicist Elliott Bloom then comments. “The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas. For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.” —Freeman J. Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study; Templeton Prize Laureate “I am writing to express my deep admiration and respect for Dr. Willie Soon, a fine astrophysicist and human being…. As Willie has shown in many ways, observational facts do not fit the CO2 dogma, and an enormous amount of evidence points to the Sun as a much more important driver of climate…. Willie was right—whatever the cause of changing temperature, the main driver cannot be the concentration of atmospheric CO2.” —William Happer, Chairman, Presidential Committee on Climate Security; Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University; Member, National Academy of Sciences Willie Soon is a geophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He received his Ph.D. (with distinction) in aeronautical engineering from the University of Southern California, and he has been Astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory; Senior Scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute; Senior Visiting Fellow at the State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science at Xiamen University; and Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Putra Malaysia. The author of 90 scientific papers, he has IEEE received the Nuclear & Plasma Sciences Society Award, Rockwell Dennis Hunt Award, Smithsonian Institution Award, Courage in Defense of Science Award, Petr Beckmann Award for Courage and Achievement in Defense of Scientific Truth and Freedom, and Frederick Seitz Memorial Award. Elliott D. Bloom is Professor Emeritus in the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC) at Stanford University and a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He was a member of the SLAC team with Jerome I. Friedman, Henry W. Kendall and Richard E. Taylor who received the Nobel Prize in Physics. He received his Ph.D. in physics from the California Institute of Technology, he is the author of numerous scientific papers, and he is the recipient of the Senior Scientist Award from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. For further information on and to order copies of the Independent Institute book, “Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate,” by geophysicist S. Fred Singer, please go here:… The Independent Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public-policy research and educational organization that shapes ideas into profound and lasting impact. The mission of Independent is to boldly advance peaceful, prosperous, and free societies grounded in a commitment to human worth and dignity. Applying independent thinking to issues that matter, the Independent Institute creates transformational ideas for today’s most pressing social and economic challenges. The results of this work are published as books, the quarterly journal, “The Independent Review,” and other publications and form the basis for numerous conference and media programs. By connecting these ideas with other organizations and networks, Independent seeks to inspire action that can unleash an era of unparalleled human flourishing at home and around the globe.


Sacked for speaking out about Climate Change – Professor Peter Ridd (two videos)

4.93K subscribers

Peter Ridd speaks on issues relating to Climate Change, his unfair dismissal and control of thought at universities.

John Roskam discusses Peter Ridd on Jones & Co

6.45K subscribers

IPA Executive Director John Roskam talks about the Peter Ridd case with Alan Jones and Peta Credlin.



The Coming Economic Crisis told in Spanish