October 19th – 30 Year Anniversary 1987 Crash


COMMENT: 30 years ago today I was sitting in a brokerage firm in New Castle Pennsylvania on a personal computer that had 720 K of RAM and ran at 1 GHz watching the market and sitting looking at the charting. Prices on stocks were running between 15 and 30 minutes late, nobody knew what was going on. All we knew was things were dropping, dropping, dropping and dropping, everyone was confused. It was crazy. The volume was bigger than they’d ever seen before. Therefore, they could not keep up with the bids and the ask.

I was short the market with every penny I owned and I had no idea how well I was doing. We tried calling places to get current prices if you could get through and even if you did they did not have current quotes, it was pure chaos. When the dust cleared at the end of the day the brokerage firm I was with had gone bankrupt and had lost most everybody’s money.

I had bought a ton of OEX puts and the person who owned the firm. Instead of processing them through regular channels, he decided to write against me on his own. He did not have the money to cover them. I was right on the market but wrong about who I placed my bids through. Three days later all the brokers at this firm were laid off, fired or let go… however you want to put it…. the friend who had the PC and the stock charts. I helped him move all the stuff out to his house. The next year he started his own brokerage firm.

The interesting thing is 5 to 10 days before that drop I told everybody we were in for a major crash but nobody wanted to believe me. But it was in the charts and I tried to show them this.

REPLY: Welcome to the old man in the corner club. You know. The old guy in the trading room who use to say this is just like 1929 when we were kids. Now we talk about 1987 which was 30 years ago. I was giving a WEC that weekend. We just elected a set of Double Weekly Bearish Reversals. The Arrays called for a low in 2 days. There were no other reversals between 286 and 180.

I remember standing up there trying to find some technical support between 286 and 180. I could not. There was nothing between the two even technically. The audience asked me what would happen? I said look, it sounds nuts, but we should move down 10,000 basis point in two days.

I myself could not believe it. But people paid me for what the computer had to say, not my opinion.

When that happened, it was right on the ECM date. It was absolutely perfect to the T.

Everyone was calling for the 1929 collapse. The model said new highs by 1989. That’s when brokerage houses were begging me to please come and speak to their retail audiences. I agreed and went to Toronto for Midland Daugherty. They filled the place with thousands of people.

Australian brokers and British brokers were all lining up to have me speak to their clients. It was all in their self-interest. They were paying back then $100k to get me to speak to their clients because I only did Institutional. It was an interesting time.

Canada’s Hunt For Taxes Turns on Minimum Wage Earners


The hunt for taxes has turned to employees of companies. Any benefit you give an employee is considered “soft-income” and is to be taxed. In the USA, the maximum value of a gift I can hand an employee is $25. I can’t even give them a decent bottle of champagne for New Years.

In Canada, this same idea of taxing any employee benefit has gone all the way to hunting the minimum wage earners. The politicians have classified any discount an employee gets as tax-avoidance and they want their nickel and dime. A minimum wage store employee who gets a 20% discount on anything the store sells or if a waitress gets a free meal while working is to be taxed. The Income Tax Act of the Canada Revenue Agency is now targeting not the “rich” but minimum wage earners since the rich are leaving. When an employee receives any sort of a discount on merchandise or a free meal because of their employment, the value of the discount is to be included in the employee’s income and taxed.

The hunt for taxes is just going to get worse until the people rise up, as they have always done, and probably start yelling the same words: No Taxation Without Representation!” Politicians are doing the same thing that sparked the French Revolution with their arrogance when taxes reduced the standard of living and people could no longer survive. The response of the government was “let them eat cake” and that did not sit very well even if those words were not really spoken – it was the rumor attached to  Marie Antoinette

Left Opposes Lowing Taxes on Rich in France to Bring them Home


An online petition from the left in France is demanding that Macrone tell the “truth” about the tax rate the top 100 French will be taxed. They refuse to look at economics and insist that whatever wealth the rich have really belongs to them. Naturally, they have already gathered more than 10,000f French signatures demanding “truth” from their government. They want to know the plans for a far-reaching abolition of the rich tax. It does not matter that so many have left France and will not return. That is always irrelevant to the left.

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.

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?

Nonlinear Complexity – Too Much for Most People to Comprehend


QUESTION: Dear Mr. Martin Armstrong.

Good day to you Martin. I know you are a very busy man, but I still like to send you emails time to time, hoping that you may read my email and respond to me. In regards to your recent post about the theory of Non-linear intervention, I was quietly amazed at the fact that I recently had the same idea as yours.

In my math class, my teacher taught us a different way to solve quadratic equations, and it was completely done by original algebra rules, not with the formulas we used to be given in high school. My math teacher said that most teachers do not use this method other than using special case formulas because its non-linear solution and that messes up people’s brain.

Also in my Economics class, we are learning about the basics of supply and demand and here we again use the straight linear method, such as ceteris paribus. I was sincerely curious to know if that is true for everything we do.

You have shown me a clear path in every aspect of this world. But I have a question about the Euro, I too have lost so much money by just looking at the fundamentals and execute trades and now I have learned that the fundamentals do not matter the most to move the market unless its very significant incident. (is that correct?) For instance, the Euro rallied whenever there was a chance to go up, and as a person who was only looking at the fundamental side, it was very odd and frustrating for me to watch it go up, but on the other hand, the technical communities were chanting a song that EUR/USD will spike to 1.2000 and so it did. I am still a fool who cannot read the market.

Mr. Martin, can you tell me where you first looked to find answers from the market? Did you study the technical first or the history? Do you think the current Catalonian independence is a contagious incident for Europe?

I thank you for teaching us great deals all the time. It is such a headache for me to collide real knowledge from you and inexperienced knowledge from school lectures, but I live my days with such joys to tell all these stories to my parents.

Best regards.

 

ANSWER: What you are describing is what set me in the right direction. In physics, the professor said that nothing is random and then I went to economics class and they said everything is random so don’t waste your time trying to forecast it. Since economics claimed the economy was random that really meant that the government can manipulate society to create the perfect world – i.e. Marx & Keynes.

However, it was 9th grade and in history class, the teacher played Toast of New York, which was the attempt to corner the gold market in 1869. I was working part-time in a bullion coin/store back then so I knew gold was fixed at $35. How was it possible that gold was $162 in 1869? That was certainly not linear. Something was just not right.

In mathematics and physical sciences, a nonlinear system is a system in which the change of the output is not proportional to the change of the input. Therefore, nonlinear problems are of great interest to engineers, physicists, and mathematicians because most systems are inherently nonlinear in nature such as weather, climate, disease, and life itself. Nonlinear systems often appear to be chaotic, unpredictable or counterintuitive. This is beyond the imagination or understanding of the average individual. Hence, this stands in opposition to the much simpler linear system which the average individual understands. This is why most theories are based upon whatever trend is in motion will stay in motion.

The fundamental analysis fails every time because it is trying to reduce the market behavior to a linear theory of simplistic logic. If people fear banks and government, some will buy stocks, others property, and still others gold. Each will buy whatever they “feel” most comfortable with. The trend is to sell public assets and move to private, yet all will benefit.

Fundamental analysis is therefore worthless because what moves a market is “belief” not logic. That is why real traders coined the phrase: Buy the rumor but sell the news! It does not matter what the fundamentals are if the people believe something, the markets will move accordingly even when that rumor turns out to be false.

As far as the Catalonian independence becoming a contagion, it already is. We see Scotland saying they want another vote. Reunification demonstration for Brittany in France began in 2014 with the turn in the War Cycle. In France, there are demonstrations over the Brittany reunification but the Western press were told not to show it to try to prevent a contagion which is starting in Europe. We will see the same thing rise in Italy going into the May 2018 elections.

Europe’s Economic Death Spiral


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, you said when you were here in Berlin that the EU Commission is about as incompetent as the US Congress. You also said Macron is trying to federalize Europe as the solution Could you elaborate on that comment?

ANSWER: The EU Commission at present is composed of 28 Commissioners, who must always ensure that they are dependent on the nomination from the home country mush as American congressmen who are supposed to represent their state. Every member of the Commission, therefore, has a personal self-interest in staying in office. The complexity of regulations and initiatives often have hidden agendas that are often far too difficult to identify. One of the proposals of Macron is to reduce the Commission to just 15 eliminating state representation and the priority would then, in theory, be given to the professional competence of the candidates rather than representing member states. This would be the FEDERALIZATION of Europe and totally eliminate and democratic process. The people would have no say in changing the direction of Europe.

Macron is proposing to create European politicians. To deal with the end of a democratic process, he has suggested that these 15 commissioners be elected by all EU citizens in the longer term. He has said that with BREXIT, the British vacancies should be the first to be open to elections of all remaining Europeans in the EU. When commissioners are elected by their own politicians, then Macron argues they are not being elected by a European choice of citizens.

In fact, a smaller Commission and a Parliament he hopes would portray Europe as a whole that would forge the EU as a single government at last. This is argued would end the current paralysis that the EU is unable to get out of the economic hole it finds itself in and the ECB has failed with its stimulation to end deflation for nearly 10 years of quantitative easing

Europe suffers from extremely high taxes, taxes and social security contributions combined, which account for around 50% of the business cost which has produced nothing but higher levels of unemployment. In the US and Asia, the comparative rates are between 30% and 40%. Europe just cannot compete in the world economy and is slowly dying.

Macron wants to unify the corporation tax of all EU states or at least the Eurozone members and to make them available to an EU for infrastructure investments. Macron still fails to see that higher taxes produce lower economic growth. Until politicians wake up and see themselves are the source of the problem, there is little hope in producing meaningful economic reform anywhere in the world.After all EU countries suffer from financial distress, the plan can only lead to even more taxes being collected and not less. This also limits the scope of the holdings.

The development of the internal market is constantly being discussed because Europe cannot really compete in the world economy with a high tax burden. However, the fundamental obstacle to creating the internal market within Europe they believed would be settled with a single currency. But that has not proven to be correct as it has merely imposed austerity upon Southern Europe after forcing their past debt to be redenominated in Euro, which then doubled in real value.

Companies operating across Europe are forced to have their own accounting system for each country and act as if they were companies in the country in which they are exporting. The cost of compliance with different rules and taxes in every member state defeats the entire idea of a single currency would solve everything.

Then there is the EU going after Apple and Amazon claiming they were given unfair tax advantages by Ireland and Luxembourg sho they should pay retroactively the difference to the higher tax rate in Europe.

In addition, a complex control system was used to make larger tax evasion responsive to even the smallest billing. There is no talk about these obstacles because each state believes that the existing regulation will generate more tax revenues. A uniform value-added tax and the distribution of revenues to all Member States have been rejected by the member states.

The different VAT tax rates among member states are illustrated here. There is no uniformity. sentences are only part of the problem.

Then there is the Pension Crisis. which is setting the stage where the public sector is facing an explosion of the deficits from 2018 onward.

The reduction of the tax burden MUST be the number one priority, yet that is never addressed. The European Central Bank will not be able to maintain zero and minus interest rates forever. As a result, the states will have to pay higher interest rates on outstanding debt and new debt, which will have an explosive impact on the deficits. We are coming to the point where this system of perpetually borrowing more and more every year will be impossible to maintain once the people begin to realize Europe is in an economic death spiral.

The core problem is never addressed. All of these proposals on how to end the European economic paralysis simply never consider the role of government and its leftist Marxism that failed in China and Russia. They will continue to raise the retirement age across Europe to try to survive another year. Europe has become an economic catastrophe of untold proportions. The high tax burden prevents a dynamic renewal of the economy reducing the standard of living for everyone and perpetuating high unemployment as twice that of the rest of the industrialized world.