Paris Climate Accord = Junk Science


QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I read a piece on the Paris Climate agreement that said climate experts now warn that an increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius could bring about irreversible consequences, including unpredictable superstorms and crippling heat waves. That seems to be anti-cyclical. How do they create such “science” without proof?

PL

ANSWER: They just make it up. Every long-term study I have looked at disagrees with this bogus claim. They have found the Romans made it to Canada because the sea was much warmer back then than it is even today. Even if we assume that if temperature rose 2 degrees that would create superstorms, which has never happened when there were periods when the Earth was much hotter, it would never be “irreversible” for the Earth does not function in a stagnant linear fashion. The only way the Earth would die is (1) the atmosphere burned off, or (2) the entire planet became snow covered reflecting sunlight and then it would never become warm again (White Earth Effect).

If there was more CO2, the planet would be greener and there would be more oxygen than CO2. The system would reverse.

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Sun Activity Has Collapsed to the Lowest in 9,300 years


THE sun is the source of all our warmth. Without it, we would not exist.  Like everything else, it is cyclical in nature. The term “lunatic” referred to people who seemed to go a bit strange when there was a full moon. Some people are perhaps susceptible to its gravitational forces. After all, it is the moon that lifts the entire oceans creating high and low tide. There are people who have varying mood swings and others who are a tad more steady. Yet we all have our ups and downs.

There is the Human Excitability Study where war was correlated to sunspot activity. The sunspot cycle is roughly every eleven years. However, this time it’s different. The sun is headed for a very rare, super-cooling period that threatens to topple civilization itself as it has throughout history roughly following a 300 year cycle.

For most of its history, science believed the sun’s output was constant. They finally realized that a thermal dynamic cycle beats like your heart so the sun could not exist if it was a steady outflow of energy. One degree less and it would blow itself out. Hence, it is cyclical rising and falling in intensity.

The eleven-year cycle in sunspots itself builds in intensity like the Economic Confidence Model (ECM) reaching “grand maxima” and “grand minima” over the course of 300 years. The last grand maximum peaked circa 1958, after which the sun has been steadily quieting down. Today, the drop in activity is at its steepest in 9,300 years, which is being ignored by the Global Warming propaganda.

The last Maunder Minimum, during which the sun languished for seventy years, took place from 1645 to 1715 when the sun’s brightness declined and the number of sunspots collapsed to almost zero.

A.L. Tchijevsky (1897-1964) did a study on sunspot and human activity. He found that humans responded even creating wars with the swings in sunspot activity.

Why Global Warming is Good


 

One of my greatest concerns with all this Global Warming nonsense is that nobody seems to ever plot weather against the rise and fall of civilization. When you do, you arrive at a strikingly different perspective of global warming. The greatest advancements in civilization have ALWAYS taken place during periods of global warming. When the temperatures drop, crops fail, death becomes widespread, and society seems to barricade itself in withdrawing from trade.

History is constantly being re-written as new discoveries are made, The global warming period that allowed the rise of Rome included the warming of the seas to the point that the Romans did sail to Canada where Roman swords have been discovered in addition to sending ambassadors to China.

The Minoan society began the Bronze Age. To make bronze, they needed tin. Low and behold, the Minoans traded with the British of Stonehenge Age period prior to 1650BC. They sailed into the Atlantic for trade giving birth to the Bronze Age. The money for trade consisted of bronze ingots cast into the shape of a sheep-skin with the four legs.

 

The fall of the Minoan Civilization coincided with the eruption of Thera (today known as Santorini). This destroyed their ships and commerce and allowed the barbarians, then the Greeks from Mycenae, to plunder their society and also that of Troy before collapsing into a Dark Age due to climate change and global cooling.

If the climate turns bitterly cold after 2032, there is not much we can do about it. The Earth will not obey any law passed by humankind. Global Warming is when civilization rises – it does not end.

 

Analysis of Global Temperature Trends, June, 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 to 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 MultiDecadal 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 per 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 baulk of the planet’s surface heat is stored.

As can be seen in the following Chart the PCM has 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. Then 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. 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 have been very high for the past 7 months and therefore I would expect the NASA plot to be well over 15.00 Celsius within a few months and certainly before the end of 2016 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.

 

Merkel to Confront Trump at G20 On Climate


Germany’s Chancellor Merkel is determined to create problems at the upcoming G20 meeting in Hamburg July 7-8. She is a brainwashed climate supporter who has refused to listen to over 31,000 scientists who have joined together against this Global Warming fraud. The Paris climate meeting refused to allow anyone to speak in opposition. They have turned this into a religious quest all to cleverly raise taxes. Merkel said that the  gathering of world leaders in Hamburg would be difficult given Trump’s climate skepticism and “America First” position. She said that she was determined to seek a clear commitment for the Paris accord against global warming and a pledge against protectionism from Trump. Talk about a brain-dead confrontation. Protectionism is one thing, but climate is more likely to block any other possible cooperation.

Global Warming – Yes Prime Minister


London Fire May Have Been Caused by EU Regulations


It turns out that the Grenfall tower fire may have been caused by Europe’s Global Warming regulations. To fight CO2 climate change, the EU Energy efficiency directive was passed into British law by the Blair Government back in 2010. The directive imposed energy efficiency  to be applied to buildings. They were directed to place cladding on the outside of the building which the poor blamed the rich to make the building look better. The wrapping of buildings in the cladding has been done all over the UK and Europe.

The Grenfell Tower fire in west London is one of at least a dozen such fatal fires that have occurred since 2000 involving cladding. The Plasco Building, Tehran, Iran was a 17-story building in January 2017 which collapsed after a fire that started on the ninth floor. The Address Downtown Dubai Hotel, pictured above, caught fire in December 2015. There the fire broke out on the 20th floor of 63-story hotel and residential tower. This was the second tallest building in Dubai.  Videos posted on social media initially showed a smallish fire above the podium section of the building. However, it then spread very rapidly up the tower in a narrow vertical column. It never spread very far sideways into the building. Dubai’s Civil Defense chief, quoted in Gulf News, said the blaze damaged “only the external interface”. It was the outside cladding that the fire traveled outside and straight up. The Residential tower in Baku, Azerbaijan also went up in a blaze during May 2015. this was a 16-story building in the Azerbaijan capital.

The Grenfell Tower fire was similar to that which took place in Dubai because of this cladding. The question becomes, will government accept the blame for this cladding to lower Co2 that was ordered by Brussels’ Global Warming legislation? The cladding used had passed building regulations and was manufactured in France. I would not hold my breath.

Governor Jerry Brown of California Advocates the Overthrow of USA


Governor Jerry Brown of California is committing Treason Against the United States. He is leading a confederacy against the Federal Government and should stand trial, but of course that would be controversial. After Trump rejected the Paris Climate treaty, which had never been ratified by the Senate, the European Union announced that it would work with a climate confederacy of secessionist states in the USA. This is clearly Treason and all Federal funds should be cut off from the secessionist governments of California, New York and Washington, who have unilaterally and completely illegally entered into a foreign treaty rejecting the President of the United States on the Paris Accord.

U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 10

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 10 – Powers Prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

There is absolutely no legal basis for Jerry Brown entering into any treaty, alliance, or confederation with the EU. Governor Cuomo of New York has also committed treason saying “New York State is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington’s irresponsible actions.”
 
Jerry Brown should be put on trial right now. He had the audacity to say: “It is a little bold to talk about the China-California partnership as though we were a separate nation, but we are a separate nation.”

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Jerry Brown described California as “a real nation-state” and said “We’re a powerful state government. We have nine other states that agree with us.” Brown boasted.

In fact, this is a Climate Alliance of California, New York, Washington, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Virginia and Rhode Island which is absolutely unconstitutional. ALL FUNDING should be cut off to these states just as they did to Iran.

It is one thing that each state can create its own laws and punish people within the state. Then they will see as more and more businesses leave. But to sign treaties with the EU, that is absolutely treason. Jerry Brown should be in prison and there is no legal question about that for he has openly advocated the overthrow of the Federal government. That in itself is a crime without having to sign a treaty.

18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Annual Growth Rates Have Dropped from 13% to 2% Since 1947 but Bill Gates Blames Robots?


Then we have workers being replaced by robots along with driverless cars. Here too, thanks to the elitists like Bill Gates, who suddenly wants to be an economist, he comes up with the solution that the government should tax robots as if they are workers. This, he proposes, would prevent the depletion of the government of much-needed income tax revenue.

First of all, robots are killing jobs because taxes and demand for benefits are going crazy. healthcare costs are consuming the net disposable income and government taxes, and the combination are conspiring to lower annual economic growth rates dramatically. Real GDP growth rates have been declining every since World War II and the dawn of big government. These people just do not get it. They are the problem. GDP annual growth has declined from 13% down to 2%. Just where has big government helped?

The solution to those in government is always more taxes and more government. Never even once will they entertain conducting a real study on economic growth. For then, you would discover the shocking truth that it now takes two wages to support a family that once took just one in 1940.

Taxes keep rising and the standard of living declines. Socialism is all about government helping itself to the spoils of class warfare handing crumbs to the people at the bottom to make them believe they are doing something other than filling their own pockets.

 

Mady DELVAUX

Mady Delvaux, a member of the European Parliament from Luxembourg, proposed back in 2016 in a report suggesting governments should recover lost tax revenue from workers displaced by automation and redistribute it to people in need. In short, she proposed a tax on robots. The problem is that the people in need are governments. Luxembourg ia a country you really want to stay far away from. It has the truly insane debt of almost $7 million per capital. No other government is that far beyond comprehension. No wonder she is desperate to propose taxing robots. I am surprised she hasn’t figured out a way to tax animals as well. Delvaux has said “Bill Gates is a great man and more intelligent than I am.” His proposal to tax robots is insane.

I find it amazing how everyone thinks they can be an economist and change society to right what they think is wrong. Why doesn’t Bill Gates start giving medical advice as well. The economy is not some toy to play with for these type of people are ignorant of how complex the economy truly is. I have stated many times, it is as complex as a rain forest. Every species is interconnected. Exterminate one and you wipe out the food source for another.  Even a koala bear typically inhabit open eucalypt woodlands, and the leaves of these trees make up most of their diet. Eliminate these trees and you will kill off that species. The economy is also a delicate complex entity. These people have never bother to study the economy and follow Marx insofar as if you think you can change the world, just hand it to government. We are far more interconnected that any of these people even dare to think.

Well Mr. Gates, I needed 240 employs in the 1980s and 1990s to maintain databases and collect everything around the world. I can do that an the push of a button today. So perhaps we should tax the entire internet and the computers you make along with your software became I can do myself with an assistant what it took 240 people to do 30 years ago. Perhaps you should be taxes retroactively for destroying jobs with technology.

 

Environmentalists Want to Starve Humans to Save the Planet


Believe it or not, the new theory in government to protect the environment is to force companies to layoff workers. They want to put a toll on workers driving to work in Canada to discourage them from working and forcing companies to close. The Financial Post has reported a story that really makes you think about government. These “big thinkers in economics” have concluded to save the planet the solution is to have fewer workers. The way to reduce pollution and carbon emissions is to raise the costs of pollution and emissions with taxes and higher prices. They are proposing road tolls to reduce pollution.

I was invited to a Washington elite political dinner and because I attended with my friend Dick Fox who was Chairman of Temple University and I was an adviser to the University, whoever it was that made the seating arrangements for these tables of 10  seated us with the environmental groups. This was in the mid-90s. Dick was the one who kept trying to drag the truth out and there it came. These were the heads of the top three environmental organizations. They admitted that the real goal was to reduce human population by making it difficult to expand and build houses. Labeling everything wetlands would reduce the ability to expand housing and thus shrink the population. When Dick got them to admit that, he moved in for the bottom-line question and asked: “So whose grandchild are trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?”

This is the root of their thinking and it is behind this new drive to reduce the number of jobs to save the planet. If they deliberately create poor people, they wont have children is the way they theorize. These people are really VERY SICK elitists beyond all rational comprehension. What right do they have to force their agenda upon the world?

It is amazing that people like Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, seems to be a totally brainwashed believer in Global Warming and criticized Donald Trump for backing out of the Paris Accord. In an open letter to his co-workers, Cook wrote, “I know many of you share my disappointment at the decision of the White House. I spoke with the President on Tuesday and tried to persuade him to let the US continue to be part of the agreement. But that has not been enough. “

Cook told Bloomberg that Trump “made a wrong decision.” Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg also wrote in his online network that the decision was “bad for the environment, bad for the economy and endangers the future of our children”. Neither seems open minded to actually look at all the evidence against Global Warming that mainstream media refuses to air. I seriously doubt that understand what they are truly supporting.

This environment elitist  theory is that higher prices will cascade through the economic system and that will reduce consumer demand and in turn force companies to shut down operations. The Financial Post wrote: “Little did Canadians know that the economy is also apparently burdened with too many workers. What else can one conclude in the wake of plans by Ontario, Alberta and B.C. to impose the equivalent of a new minimum $15 road toll on low-wage workers?”

We have some very very very sick people who think they need to reduce the world population to save the planet. Politicians just lick their lips at the thought of gaining a lot more revenue