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.


Sex with Robots? 49% of Men say they would Give it a Try – Women 9%

Well, there seems to be a new sex revolution emerging – sex with robots with Artificial Intelligence. It may seem completely nuts, but something is going on. A friend of mine went to a baseball game and he sat next to two young girls 21 and 23. They were curious about the good-old days and told him they had never been on an official date. They explained that boys just called and said we are all going to meet at xyz, so come along. Have the younger generation just so completely changed that relationships are gradually fading away?

When you dig a little deeper, you find that the youth are not only living with their parents into their 30s, but they are not buying into the American Dream of owning your own home. Rents are cheaper. With some, I have spoken to and they say how their parents worked hard, put everything into the home, watched taxes soar and property values crash after 2007. They seem to be taking a different path in life altogether.

About half of American adults believe having sex with robots will become common in the next 50 years. About 49% of adult males are ready to give it a try now but only 9% of women. The first time this sort of thing was portrayed in a moved was back in 1990. The girlfriend was a hologram. Well, we are not quite at the hologram level of technology just yet, but the AI sex doll revolution seems to be taking hold.

Some of the benefits – no divorce settlements and I suppose you get a window seat when you travel. The Global Warming people will be happy since that means a lower birth rate. Then again, what will the government do? The Ponzi scheme of counting on the next generation to pay for the previous will completely collapse.

A new AI sex doll revolution would also have profound economic consequences for the government.

Oyster, Clams & Mussels Produce Massive Global Warming Gas


Well, you can help save the planet by eating more oysters, clams, and mussels since it has been discovered that they produce 8 times more Global Warming gasses than even cows, that the EU wanted to regulate cow farting. A new study now blames these creatures for putting out gasses significantly more given their size.

The new study from Sweden reports that these creatures produce “ridiculous” levels of climate-warming gasses. Obviously, the solution to saving the planet is killing all the cows and drink almond milk, give up your job and live off of welfare as the government wants in Canada, eat as many oysters, clams, and mussels as you can, if you have to absolutely have sex use condoms to reduce the population in the industrialized world at least, and government should do its part and impose a permit to have sex and tax it.

Make Austria Great Again – Nationalism Rises Amid Europe’s Latest Election Result…

Against growing immigration policy backlash, early results in the Austria election show the center-right People’s Party (OVP), led by Sebastian Kurz, winning with around 31 percent of the vote.  The second place party, Freedom Party (FPO), with around 27% is even more euro-skeptic and nationalistic minded.  The Social Democrat Party, the former lead party, has dropped to third place with around 26%.

(Via Express UK) The People’s Party (OVP) got 30.2 per cent of the vote, according to exit polls from Austrian news channel ORF.

Mr Kurz’s party is tough on migration, easy on taxes and widely Eurosceptic after rebranding itself over the last few months to propel its popularity in the wealthy Alpine nation.

He is expected to form a coalition with the right-wing populist Freedom party (FPO), who got 26.8 per cent of the vote, according to the latest projections.

Speaking after 85 per cent of the votes were counted, he told his cheering supporters: “Today we have won a huge mandate to change this country, and I promise you I will work with all my energy for change.

“We want to establish a new culture in politics. And we want to change the country for the better.”

Meanwhile, the Social Democratic Party, the largest party in the last government, are in third place with 26.3 per cent. (link)

(Via Reuters) There was a temptation after the Dutch and French elections this year to declare an end to the nationalist/populist wave in Europe. But last month’s German election, which saw the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party surge into the Bundestag, and now the Austrian election, say otherwise.

Despite a hard shift right by the conservative OVP under Kurz, the FPO appeared close to the all-time high of 26.9 it won in 1999. That result paved the way for it to enter government, a move which prompted a horrified European Union to impose sanctions against Austria. If the FPO enters the government this time, expect little more than a whimper.

The Austrian result showed that the refugee crisis of 2015 has left deep scars among European voters, especially in countries that were at the center of the storm. The number of asylum seekers entering Austria has fallen sharply over the past year. But migration was the dominant theme in the election.  (read more)

Madrid Threatens Imprisonment & Death to Catalonia Leaders?


The Apanish Government is clearly fascist and cannot escape that stigma. The day before the appearance of Carles Puigdemont in front of the regional parliament of Catalonia, the Madrid government has come out and warned the head of the with serious bodily threats that one would expect only from a dictator – not an elected democratic government. Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s spokes person, Pablo Casado, came out and rejected all calls for any dialogue in Madrid with Catalonia. “We will not give in, and there is nothing to negotiate with the putschists,” said Casado.

Casados boldly stated publicly: “Anyone who declares it (independence) will end up like the one who declared it 83 years ago.” In Spanish history back in 1934, Lluís Companys i Jover (1882-1940) was the head of  Catalonia’s government, which proclaimed itself as an independent state back then as well. He and the entire regional government were arrested after a few hours by the Spanish army. He was exiled to France in 1939 but would not leave because his son was seriously ill. In 1940, Companys was captured and was handed over by the Nazi Gestapo to the dictator Francisco Franco (1939-1975). He was executed in Barcelona at 6:30 a.m. on October 15, 1940 for seeking Catalonian Independence. Lluís  refused to wear a blindfold, and was taken before a firing squad of Civil Guards barefoot. When they fired, his last words were ‘Per Catalunya!’ (For Catalonia!). Keep in mind that people were imprisoned for even speaking Catalonia’s language.

More than 90% of voters in Catalonia voted for a separation from Spain BECAUSE of Rajoy’s dictatorial attitude. Here is a banknote from the last Independence movement from our collection of the World Monetary System. The opponents of Independence, who had boycotted the vote by a majority, went to the streets of Barcelona on Sunday to protest against the separation. As the EU declines in an economic death spiral, things are only going to get worse over the next two years and Rajoy will see the Spanish outside of Catalonia rise up against his dictatorial-like reign.

For the Rajoy government to threaten killing any public official who again declares independence is just beyond belief. For the EU to standby and say nothing is even more of a disgrace. The federalization of Europe to Brussels now supersede human rights. It’s all about the politicians and power now.

The Euro has still been unable to reach the first key area of important resistance standing at the 125 area. We still see November as the critical turning point and a Panic Cycle as well. There is no doubt that Spain will impact the Euro and indeed may help to push the Italians to also vote to separate as they witness the fascist-style response of the Rajoy government. Taking to key institutions in Europe, what many now want to see is a resignation from Rajoy. He is doing tremendous damage to the image of Europe as a whole.

Meanwhile, there appears to be a run on the European Central Bank (ECB) itself. Banks have tendered this week calling in a total of 21.3 billion euros, which is the highest amount since March. Typically, this runs between 3 to 4 billion Euros. Many see this as rising concerns in Italy of a full blown banking crisis set in motion by the new ECB guidelines. Banks will now have to gradually cover all loans that are now classified as risky. In the case of new unsecured problem loans, 100% coverage is to be achieved after two years, and for new collateralized loan loans no later than seven years.

Others see the run being sparked also by Rajoy. The threats of violence against Catalonia’s leaders brings back the days of Franco and Nazi actions. This is just not going down very well behind the curtain.

Joseph Napoleon Bonaparte & His Exile in New Jersey

QUESTION: Years ago, while visiting Salamanca, Spain, I was told that Napoleon’s brother abandoned his rule over Spain and made off with a large cache of gold. I know that he fled Spain to New Jersey. Is there any truth to this gold story? If so, what economic impact did he and the gold have in New Jersey?


ANSWER: Yes, I grew up in New Jersey with the story of Napoleon’s brother living there in exile. He fled the British to America I suppose like Snowden going to Russia. It was on March 30, 1814, when the allied troops reached Paris. Joseph Bonaparte and his family fled at first to Switzerland. He bought an estate at Prangins, between Geneva and Lausanne. However, when Napoleon escaped from Elba in 1815, Joseph returned to Paris to join him. Then after Napoleon’s second abdication, Joseph gallantly offered to change places with his brother so the latter could board the American brig the Commerce, of Charleston, to America. Joseph had chartered that ship for his own escape. Consequently, Joseph left for the United States only when he heard that Napoleon had surrendered to Britain’s Captain Maitland of HMS Bellerophon.

The rumor that Joseph sailed with tons of gold from Spain was another conspiracy theory. However, the Commerce was twice boarded and inspected by the British. Joseph was prepared with fake papers. They worked and he managed escaping detection. He arrived in New York on August 28, 1815 . His Spanish ordinance officer Unzaga, his interpreter James Carret, his cook Francois Parrot, and his secretary Louis Mailliard all accompanied him. The rumor was that Congressman Henry Clay assisted Joseph and provided him with a hotel to stay in. Joseph left his wife Julie and his daughters in Paris. They later moved to Frankfurt and then to Brussels.

Joseph left New York City with the intention of meeting President Madison. Madison sent someone to intercept him and told that a meeting could not take place with the President. Joseph assumed the title of the Count of Survilliers, after a small property he owned near Mortefontaine. He was able to transfer a large part of his fortune to the United States, where he invested it. He rented a house in Philadelphia and bought an estate called Point Breeze in Bordentown, New Jersey. He also bought a large tract of land in upstate New York, to which he made extensive improvements. The latter contained a 1,200 acre lake which Joseph named Lake Diana, after the goddess of the hunt. It is now known as Lake Bonaparte.

Joseph’s home became gathering places for other Napoleonic exiles, including Charles and Henri Lallemand and Charles Lefebvre-Desnouettes. He contributed generously to the French exiles’ Society for the Cultivation of the Vine and the Olive. Nevertheless, Joseph also developed friendships with many prominent Americans, including Nicholas Biddle of the First Bank of the United States, as well as Charles Ingersoll, Stephen Girard, Charles Stewart, and Joseph Hopkinson. He was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society, where he met more of America’s great names.

Joseph Bonaparte’s home in Bordentown burned down though in 1820. When they excavated the site they recovered some 14,000 artifacts. He left with some gold, but there is no real record of how much he took with him into exile. As for his wealth, it was transferred by banks from Switzerland to America at the Bank of the United States as a valued customer of Nicholas Biddle.

Madrid Waged Cyber-War & Catalonia Votes Overwhelmingly to Leave Spain

Catalonia voted overwhelmingly to secede from Spain. Of course, the hard line invasion of riot police who beat and threatened the people discouraged many from showing up with the turnout being only 43%. The fascist government in Spain has demonstrated to the entire world that there is a major country risk in dealing with Spain. Any government that uses force against democracy will do whatever it takes to sustain power as the economy gets wose going into 2021.

Hundreds of people were injured by riot police attempting to prevent voting, and this has only caused outrage and further protests solidifying the resolve to separate from such a fascist government. Both Canada and Britain allowed separatist votes. Why Spain deemed the vote illegal was clear that they knew they would vote to leave.

Madrid even waged a cyber-war against Catalonia. They sought to shut down the internet and even ordered Google to shut down traffic coming from Catalonia. Madrid has shown the future civil war tactic will be to shut down the internet to prevent communication.

Catalonia’s parliament may well now declare independence; Madrid could decide to impose direct rule on the region and the police have been transformed into terrorists resembling the imported Russian police in Ukraine. Barcelona is perhaps the most beautiful city in Europe. Obviously, Madrid will be off the tourist agenda in the years ahead.

Communism/Socialism = Better Sex for Women?

Believe it or not, the latest twist is Marxism provides better sex for women than capitalism. According to the latest study, Eastern women had twice as many orgasms as Western women when comparing the Germans after the Wall fell. What they fail to explain is that you really had no entertainment other than sex. Eastern European women who come to the USA have a hard time shopping even for toilet paper. I use to have a Russian girlfriend we met in Tokyo back in the ’90s. When she came to the States and we would go shopping, she was perplexed. How do you make a decision between so many brands of toilet paper? she would ask. In Russia, she said, there was just one.

Researchers claim that women under Communism reported greater sexual satisfaction. They remarked that East German women suffered from the notorious double burden of formal employment and housework compared to postwar West German women who remained at home and enjoyed all the labor-saving devices produced by the the capitalist economy. The women who stayed home in the West had less sex than women who had to line up for toilet paper under Communism.

Well I suppose the less is, bring back Marxism, surrender all rights, TV isn’t worth watching since all the news is fake, and just have sex.

EU Press Release Show They Support Tyranny

The press release put out by the EU is just amazing. A dictator can write any law he desires declaring something to be illegal. The EU relies upon that unethical law to claim that Catalonia has no right to vote. Canada allowed Quebec to vote twice and Britain allowed Scotland to vote. Why is Catalonia denied any right to ever vote? The EU has the audacity to actually write:

“If a referendum were to be organised in line with the Spanish Constitution it would mean that the territory leaving would find itself outside of the European Union.”

So in other words, had they won an illegal vote, then they would be outside the EU so therefore the EU cannot intervene to defend human rights? So the civil war in Syria is against what they call a dictator and that is OK, but the people inside Europe have no right to demand a change in government at all. I am sure the Syrian government would also say the rebels are acting illegally and cannot overthrow the government. Quite honestly, everyone government throughout history has taken that position no matter if they are a monarchy, dictatorship, tyrannical, or elected republican or democratic.

Well as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that the king also declared was unlawful:

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.