Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 16, 2022 | Sundance
This is a great example of two dangerous dynamics. First, the intellectual dishonesty that is needed to believe that Russia would attack Poland. Second, the insufferable immediate response from U.S. and international media stenographers lusting for war, and the danger they represent.
After the media initially proclaimed a “pentagon spokesperson” reported that Russia fired two missiles into Poland, and then ran with that narrative with such ferocity that Polish President Duda requested an article-4 convention in preparation for a NATO war,… 24 hours later the NATO alliance says ‘whoops‘ it wasn’t a Russian missile, it was a Ukraine missile that landed in Poland.
(Politico) NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg chaired an emergency meeting of alliance ambassadors on Wednesday in Brussels to discuss the incident.
After the session, he said information so far suggests the missile that landed in Poland came from Ukrainian air defenses fighting off a massive Russian attack on Tuesday that saw the country pummelled by dozens of missiles that caused blackouts across Ukraine.
“We have no indication that this was the result of a deliberate attack,” he said. “And we have no indication that Russia is preparing offensive military actions against NATO. Our preliminary analysis suggests that the incident was likely caused by a Ukrainian air defense missile fired to defend Ukrainian territory against Russian cruise missile attacks.”
Duda said the explosion that killed two people in the village of Przewodów, about six kilometers from the Ukrainian border, was likely caused by the missile’s propellant, saying it was probably an S-300 anti-aircraft rocket produced in Soviet times.
“There is also no evidence that it was fired by the Russian side,” he said, calling it “an unfortunate incident.”
Earlier, U.S. President Joe Biden said it was “unlikely in the lines of the trajectory that it was fired from Russia, but we’ll see.” (read more)
Now let’s get beyond the nonsense and talk about the reality of the situation.
We all know the U.S. State Department, not Ukraine or Zelenskyy, is in control of ground military operations in Ukraine. As a result of that reality, the intellectually honest observer admits to themselves the CIA is therefore the tip of the spear in the country.
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy today stomping his little feet and saying no, no way it was Ukraine, only highlights the reality of World War Reddit, where Zelenskyy is nothing more than a casual front man -in Hollywood garb- for the CIA/DoS mission. Puppet Zelenskyy has no idea who, what, where and why strategic U.S. military forces and contractors are operating in his country. Zelenskyy’s Ukraine function is to be the Bob Geldorf face in the Ukraine funding and money laundering operation. Nothing more.
So, we have a Ukraine missile fired now supposedly fired “errantly” in a westward direction into Poland, while trying to intercept a Russian missile fired from the east. Um, well, yeah, that sounds like, :::cough::: bullshit :::cough::: but so be it. As the kids say, “whatevs.”
CIA Director Bill Burns also just happened to be in Ukraine at the time of the “errant” missile firing. What timing…. And all of this comes on the heels of increased public awareness that the FTX cryptocurrency exchange was coordinating the movement of laundering of U.S. taxpayer funds from Ukraine into DC pockets via campaign contributions. Wow, more coincidences.
The Occam’s Razor of the situation would indicate that our U.S. proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is entering that dark and energy dependent time of the year, ie winter, and Russia is not being defeated in their securing of the pro-Russia eastern Ukraine region. So, some knuckleheads in the DoS office of plausible deniability, in coordination with some knuckleheads in the CIA office of plausible deniability, decided to try and pull in some more NATO elements with operation “errant missile into Ukraine that we will blame on Putin.”
Brilliant plan guys… except for the whole potential for NATO nuclear war part.
Luckily for the normies in Ukraine, they avoided the downstream consequence, likely operation vaporization, after reasonable people -few though they may be- said, it might not be a good idea for the whole let’s go to war with Russia in winter thing.
Yep, unfortunately that’s the reality of our current state dept geopolitical outlook, in combination with the ideological thirty-somethings that are running out of Hollywood actors to show up and fundraise.
At 8:18AM Zelensky on a video call to G20 leaders told them that Russia was a “terrorist state” among them and that the attack was deliberate by Russia and that the missiles were a “true statement brought by Russia for the G20 summit.”
It is now confirmed that the missiles were fired by Ukraine. To pretend it was not another “Ukrainian False Flag” they claimed the missiles were fired at a Russian missile and were not intentional. Forget saving the planet for climate change which is also a natural occurrence, the ONLY way to save the planet is to get rid of every Neocon and politician supporting this ruthless liar and remove them from office. Any politicians who supports Ukraine should be charged with conspiracy to create war crimes.
I agree with Henry Kissinger that Ukraine must relinquish the Donbas. Zelensky tears into Kissinger and pretends Russia wants to invade Europe and this is not 1939. I have had employees in Kyiv and Donestk. I am well aware of how deeply seated the hatred of Russians is embedded in Kyiv. You cannot even bring a bottle of Russian vodka to dinner. Anything Russian is an insult and deeply offends them. You have never seen such prejudice and hatred until you deal with Ukrainians. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing that Zelensky will not say to desperately engulf the entire world in his hatred of Russia.
There is NOTHING that Zelensky will ever say that should be taken as fact. The West ignored how as soon as the 2014 Revolution took place, they began their civil war against the Donbas and they began killing Russian civilians on the street of Odesa. NOBODY in the West has EVER even talked about the war crimes of Ukrainians.
I know of two French soldiers who went to Ukraine to fight for freedom and left because of the hatred and war crimes with Ukrainians murdering and torturing Russian soldiers they captured. How about crucifying Russian soldiers and then burning them alive? That is not a war crime?
There is no solution. As long as the West keeps up this proxy war against Russia, there will be World War III and you will find a lot more countries coming to Russia’s side because of the hypocrisy and lies from Zelensky. Throughout the region, even in Macedonia, the people favor Russia because they know what I know about Ukraine and the seething hatred that blinds the country. In Serbia the same. The neighbors of Ukraine know them very well. I have warned, there is a very dark side to Ukraine.
Zelensky has supported the Ukrainian Neo-Nazis who have been protected by the American Neocons. The Ukrainian Neo-Nazis even bragged that they feed the bones of Russian-speaking children to their pet wolves. Zelensky could have easily resolved this entire crisis by honoring the Minsk Agreement and letting the Russian Donbas vote – the very people Zelensky and his Neo-Nazis hate so much. He knows what he is doing by constantly trying to get NATO to enter Ukraine which will be World War III. He said the world should join Ukraine to kill all the Russians because World War III has already started. He will go down in history as someone up there with Adolf Hitler when the dust settles. He wants all our children to die for his personal hatred. He wants to destroy all of our world peace that has been forged since World War II and he wants us to lose our way of life all for his hatred. Pushing Russia against the wall will only lead to Nuclear War. An animal cornered fights to the death. Zelensky has divided the entire world.
Zelensky’s lies will catch up to him and his reign of terror will most likely end by 2025, but he will probably take all of Ukraine with him. We should be mindful that this all goes crazy next year. His lies to create World War III will in the end destroy Ukraine.
I have spent my entire career attempting to prove my own computer system wrong. It brought me no pleasure to reveal that the world was heading into a world war. The War Cycle has never been wrong.
Poland’s attack appears similar to the Lusitania sinking that began World War II. They have lied to start every war using excuses from weapons of mass destruction to the fact that Germans sank the Lusitania because the US was secretly using passenger ships to move weapons to Britain. The collaboration of NATO means that all countries must now act.
Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, including in response to the situation in Syria and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.
Bombing Poland is akin to bombing all NATO countries, and each country must collectively respond. NATO was never a means to curb warfare. They have been lining up troops around Eastern Europe in preparation for this moment. Governments would not have sent troops overseas to train Ukrainian soldiers if they did not expect to participate in a war themselves. Hold tight, as this is tragically the beginning.
Rules for thee, but not for me! The elites rushed to Egypt for the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference, commonly known as COP27, to discuss how the plebians can suffer under the excuse of climate change. Sharm el-Sheikh’s airport was renovated to accommodate these climate change pioneers who arrived in over 400 private jets.
A private jet can emit two tons of carbon dioxide in one hour, which creates 14X the pollution PER PASSENGER compared to a commercial aircraft. Around 33,000 people registered for the COP27 event. From the event’s website:
“The hope is that COP27 will be the turning point where the world came together and demonstrated the requisite political will to take on the climate challenge through concerted, collaborative and impactful action. Where agreements and pledges were translated to projects and programs, where the world showed that we are serious in working together and in rising to the occasion, where climate change seized to be a zero sum equation and there is no more ” us and them” but one international community working for the common good of our shared planet and humanity.”
“We must unite to limit global warming to well below 2c and work hard to keep the 1.5 c target alive. This requires bold and immediate actions and raising ambition from all parties in particular those who are in a position to do so and those who can and do lead by example,” the website also notes. They are requesting $100 billion USD annually to “build more trust between developed and developing countries.”
When big government comes knocking on your door this winter for running the thermostat too high, remember how these elites “fought” for us. They laugh at us from their ivory towers. Climate change initiatives have nothing to do with protecting the environment; they are intended to protect the elite’s wealth and power.
Russia has come out and denied that their missiles entered Poland. It is time the West calls out Zelensky for what he is – a ruthless liar who should be removed from power to save humanity – forget the planet. I warned from the outset, this would be the man who will create World War III. He is a total disgrace. He has done nothing but lies to the world EVERY SINGLE TIME. Any Western Media who supports Zelensky are puppets of the deep state and are NOT independent journalists. If they did their job. they would report the truth.
The Ukrainians shot down the Malaysian flight MH17 and tried to blame the Russians in the Donbas. They used an old Russian missile that was no longer in use. The Ukrainians killed their own people to create a false flag before at Bucha. They massacred Russian civilians in Odessa in May and the West was silent. Those who went to Ukraine believing they were fighting for democracy have returned accusing Ukraine of carrying out war crimes.
Besides Zelensky outlawing the Russian language when the people of Eastern Ukraine are ethnic Russians who have lived there for centuries and Ukraine NEVER existed before the USSR, he has also carried out a Holy War outlawing Russian churches and demanding they are not subservient to Kyiv. They is no different from the French seizure of the Vatican and moving it to Avinion – the period of the anti-popes. He has done the same thing and outlawed the equivalent of the pope to Russian Orthodox. He has not just denied democracy by rejecting the Belgrade and Minsk Agreements where the Donbas was to vote for their own independence, but he has even denied them the Freedom of Religion.
This is the man who is destroying the world and the West cheers this character? Every newspaper that cheers the death of people on the battlefield and civilians all to support this ruthless greedy character, has washed their hands in blood. They should put on their high heels to join him on the world stage. Claiming they cannot “independently” confirm is not good enough They are COVERING UP the Truth.
Information is surfacing that we may be dealing with another Ukrainian desperate attempt to create World War III and that the missiles fired were from Ukraine. This is not yet verified but the US is now saying the missile attack is not yet confirmed to be from Russia. It would be nice if the West acknowledged that Ukraine is ruthless and NOT to be trusted. The Ukrainians killed their own people to create a false flag before at Bucha. There are reports that NATO has proof that the people were killed by Ukrainians. There are also confirmations that the claimed people shooting Ukrainians from the rood tops during Maidan were Ukrainians – not Yanukovich.
Russia fired a number of missiles at Ukraine taking down power grids and hitting Lviv which is just 50 miles from Poland. It appears that two of those missiles fell short and landed in Poland. Latvia’s deputy prime minister, Artis Pabriks, said Moscow had fired missiles that landed in Poland and Putin sent Warsaw his condolences. Meanwhile, the US Pentagon has said it could not confirm that Russian missiles had crossed into Poland.
The question is will NATO use this as the excuse they have been waiting for to launch a war against Russia next week or come January, or do they want Ukraine to run out of soldiers to wear down Russia first? The strategy has been to use Ukraine as they did in Afghanistan to fund locals to wage a war to defeat Russia by attrition. We created the Taliban and all the arms we provided in that proxy war then led to them turning against Americans and also the attack on 9/11 – the unintended consequences of proxy wars.
Despite the fact that McCain was a Republican, he conspired with Hillary against Trump and handed the fake dossier to the FBI because Trump would not fund his dream proxy war to have Ukrainians start the civil war against the Russians in the Donbas he started back in 2014. McCain and Hillary were both Neocons. Despite being in opposite parties, they both always wanted to destroy Russia. No doubt, Hillary is calling everyone urging World War III now using these two missiles that hit Poland proclaiming this is a war on NATO. US Intelligence now confirms that Russian missiles hit Poland. Now Poland has called an emergency meeting about the incident.
These people are desperate for war. They want to create world war III all to hide the collapse of our monetary system and the central banks cannot prop up the bond markets where nobody in their right mind would buy any long-term debt from any of these countries. The game is over! If they cannot keep the funding going for socialism, then it is time for war. As Maggie use to say – we have run out of other people’s money – just like FTX.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 11, 2022 | Sundance
They have proposed and refined so many of the carbon trading schemes, it becomes difficult to remember which iteration each new formula replaces. Heck, I’ve lost track of how many of the individual components of the larger plan are already in place. However, John Kerry has introduced the western elites at COP27 to the latest acceptable proposal surrounding coal fired energy.
Against the backdrop of sped-up Build Back Better urgency, this coal-based carbon trading platform is called the Energy Transition Accelerator (ETA).
When you stay elevated to the larger way the Energy Transition Accelerator works you can clearly see the transferring of wealth from your bank account to the global control mechanism that will eventually determine your energy allotment. The companies that provide energy are simply the collectors for the fees you will pay to the World Economic Forum income disbursement group.
(Reuters) – […] The scheme, known as the Energy Transition Accelerator (ETA), was launched at the United Nations’ COP27 conference this week by John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, in collaboration with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund.
[…] Voluntary carbon markets, in which companies get emissions credits in return for channeling cash to poor countries that cut their carbon output, have often been riddled with fraud and double-counting. Many critics think rich countries should just fork out the cash themselves to close coal plants – or tax fossil fuel companies to get the money. (read more)
There’s the system in a nutshell. Energy providers must purchase emission credits from the ‘carbon market’ (govt); in the U.S. likely the EPA as they do with RIN credits. The electricity provider puts the carbon purchase credit fee in your electricity bill.
The money generated from that credit purchase system is then delivered to the government who take a cut; then pass along the balance to the central climate control unit who take a cut; then forward the remaining balance to the third-world government who also take a cut; and then the remainder is used to develop clean energy systems; which returns to the starting point with the energy providers.
See how that works?
That’s the basic operational model of all the carbon-trading platforms.
Widget Corp (energy provider) is forced to purchase a credit. Widget Corp. get the fee for the credit from the customers (you). The fee is passed on to govt, then passed on to central control, then passed on to foreign govt, then passed on to Widget Corp. for building the new clean energy system.
Yes, it’s a Build Back Better circle.
The only way to avoid the Carbon-Trading Exchange is not to join the carbon trading system.
Well, that said, what does not joining the carbon trading system look like?
(Silk Road) – The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov has stated that ‘over a dozen’ countries have formally applied to join the BRICS grouping following the groups decision to allow new members earlier this year. The BRICS currently includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
It is not a free trade bloc, but members do coordinate on trade matters and have established a policy bank, the New Development Bank, (NDB) to coordinate infrastructure loans. That was set up in 2014 in order to provide alternative loan mechanisms from the IMF and World Bank structures, which the members had felt had become too US-centric.
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) was set up by China at about the same time for largely the same reasons and to offer alternative financing than that provided by the IMF and World Banks, which were felt to impose political reform policies designed to assist the United States in return for providing loans. Both the NDB and AIIB banks are Triple A rated and capitalised at US$100 billion. The NDB bank shares are held equally by each of the five members.
In total, the BRICS grouping as it currently stands accounts for over 40% of the global population and nearly a quarter of the world’s GDP. The GDP figure is expected to double to 50% of global GDP by 2030. Expanding BRICS will immediately accelerate that process.
Concerning a BRICS expansion, Lavrov stated that Algeria, Argentina, and Iran had all applied, while it is already known that Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Egypt and Afghanistan are interested, along with Indonesia, which is expected to make a formal application to join at the upcoming G20 summit in Bali.
Other likely contenders for membership include Kazakhstan, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Senegal, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates. All had their Finance Ministers present at the BRICS Expansion dialogue meeting held in May. (more)
Can you see it now?
This is the global trade and finance system cleaving as a result of western government’s chasing climate change.
There will eventually be two systems of finance, banking, investment and energy use.
Can you see it now?
Right now, the ‘western’ team is not going to allow any ally to join the BRICS team without punishment.
It’s a battle for global wealth using energy development as the tool.
Last point. With this in mind, does the multinational opposition to President Trump carry a new “trillions at stake” context for you?
By Greg Chapman “The world has less than a decade to change course to avoid irreversible ecological catastrophe, the UN warned today.” The Guardian Nov 28 2007 “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Yogi Berra Introduction Global extinction due to global warming has been predicted more times than climate activist, Leo DiCaprio, has traveled by private jet. But where do these predictions come from? If you thought it was just calculated from the simple, well known relationship between CO2 and solar energy spectrum absorption, you would only expect to see about 0.5o C increase from pre-industrial temperatures as a result of CO2 doubling, due to the logarithmic nature of the relationship. Figure 1: Incremental warming effect of CO2 alone [1] The runaway 3-6o C and higher temperature increase model predictions depend on coupled feedbacks from many other factors, including water vapour (the most important greenhouse gas), albedo (the proportion of energy reflected from the surface – e.g. more/less ice or clouds, more/less reflection) and aerosols, just to mention a few, which theoretically may amplify the small incremental CO2 heating effect. Because of the complexity of these interrelationships, the only way to make predictions is with climate models because they can’t be directly calculated. The purpose of this article is to explain to the non-expert, how climate models work, rather than a focus on the issues underlying the actual climate science, since the models are the primary ‘evidence’ used by those claiming a climate crisis. The first problem, of course, is no model forecast is evidence of anything. It’s just a forecast, so it’s important to understand how the forecasts are made, the assumptions behind them and their reliability. How do Climate Models Work? In order to represent the earth in a computer model, a grid of cells is constructed from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the atmosphere. Within each cell, the component properties, such as temperature, pressure, solids, liquids and vapour, are uniform. The size of the cells varies between models and within models. Ideally, they should be as small as possible as properties vary continuously in the real world, but the resolution is constrained by computing power. Typically, the cell area is around 100×100 km2 even though there is considerable atmospheric variation over such distances, requiring each of the physical properties within the cell to be averaged to a single value. This introduces an unavoidable error into the models even before they start to run. The number of cells in a model varies, but the typical order of magnitude is around 2 million. Figure 2: Typical grid used in climate models [2]
Once the grid has been constructed, the component properties of each these cells must be determined. There aren’t, of course, 2 million data stations in the atmosphere and ocean. The current number of data points is around 10,000 (ground weather stations, balloons and ocean buoys), plus we have satellite data since 1978, but historically the coverage is poor. As a result, when initialising a climate model starting 150 years ago, there is almost no data available for most of the land surface, poles and oceans, and nothing above the surface or in the ocean depths. This should be understood to be a major concern. Figure 3: Global weather stations circa 1885 [3]
Once initialised, the model goes through a series of timesteps. At each step, for each cell, the properties of the adjacent cells are compared. If one such cell is at a higher pressure, fluid will flow from that cell to the next. If it is at higher temperature, it warms the next cell (whilst cooling itself). This might cause ice to melt or water to evaporate, but evaporation has a cooling effect. If polar ice melts, there is less energy reflected that causes further heating. Aerosols in the cell can result in heating or cooling and an increase or decrease in precipitation, depending on the type. Increased precipitation can increase plant growth as does increased CO2. This will change the albedo of the surface as well as the humidity. Higher temperatures cause greater evaporation from oceans which cools the oceans and increases cloud cover. Climate models can’t model clouds due to the low resolution of the grid, and whether clouds increase surface temperature or reduce it, depends on the type of cloud. It’s complicated! Of course, this all happens in 3 dimensions and to every cell resulting in considerable feedback to be calculated at each timestep. The timesteps can be as short as half an hour. Remember, the terminator, the point at which day turns into night, travels across the earth’s surface at about 1700 km/hr at the equator, so even half hourly timesteps introduce further error into the calculation, but again, computing power is a constraint. While the changes in temperatures and pressures between cells are calculated according to the laws of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics, many other changes aren’t calculated. They rely on parameterisation. For example, the albedo forcing varies from icecaps to Amazon jungle to Sahara desert to oceans to cloud cover and all the reflectivity types in between. These properties are just assigned and their impacts on other properties are determined from lookup tables, not calculated. Parameterisation is also used for cloud and aerosol impacts on temperature and precipitation. Any important factor that occurs on a subgrid scale, such as storms and ocean eddy currents must also be parameterised with an averaged impact used for the whole grid cell. Whilst the effects of these factors are based on observations, the parameterisation is far more a qualitative rather than a quantitative process, and often described by modelers themselves as an art, that introduces further error. Direct measurement of these effects and how they are coupled to other factors is extremely difficult and poorly understood. Within the atmosphere in particular, there can be sharp boundary layers that cause the models to crash. These sharp variations have to be smoothed. Energy transfers between atmosphere and ocean are also problematic. The most energetic heat transfers occur at subgrid scales that must be averaged over much larger areas. Cloud formation depends on processes at the millimeter level and are just impossible to model. Clouds can both warm as well as cool. Any warming increases evaporation (that cools the surface) resulting in an increase in cloud particulates. Aerosols also affect cloud formation at a micro level. All these effects must be averaged in the models. When the grid approximations are combined with every timestep, further errors are introduced and with half hour timesteps over 150 years, that’s over 2.6 million timesteps! Unfortunately, these errors aren’t self-correcting. Instead this numerical dispersion accumulates over the model run, but there is a technique that climate modelers use to overcome this, which I describe shortly. Figure 4: How grid cells interact with adjacent cells [4]
Model Initialisation After the construction of any type of computer model, there is an initalisation process whereby the model is checked to see whether the starting values in each of the cells are physically consistent with one another. For example, if you are modelling a bridge to see whether the design will withstand high winds and earthquakes, you make sure that before you impose any external forces onto the model structure other than gravity, that it meets all the expected stresses and strains of a static structure. Afterall, if the initial conditions of your model are incorrect, how can you rely on it to predict what will happen when external forces are imposed in the model? Fortunately, for most computer models, the properties of the components are quite well known and the initial condition is static, the only external force being gravity. If your bridge doesn’t stay up on initialisation, there is something seriously wrong with either your model or design! With climate models, we have two problems with initialisation. Firstly, as previously mentioned, we have very little data for time zero, whenever we chose that to be. Secondly, at time zero, the model is not in a static steady state as is the case for pretty much every other computer model that has been developed. At time zero, there could be a blizzard in Siberia, a typhoon in Japan, monsoons in Mumbai and a heatwave in southern Australia, not to mention the odd volcanic explosion, which could all be gone in a day or so. There is never a steady state point in time for the climate, so it’s impossible to validate climate models on initialisation. The best climate modelers can hope for is that their bright shiny new model doesn’t crash in the first few timesteps. The climate system is chaotic which essentially means any model will be a poor predictor of the future – you can’t even make a model of a lottery ball machine (which is a comparatively a much simpler and smaller interacting system) and use it to predict the outcome of the next draw. So, if climate models are populated with little more than educated guesses instead of actual observational data at time zero, and errors accumulate with every timestep, how do climate modelers address this problem? History matching If the system that’s being computer modelled has been in operation for some time, you can use that data to tune the model and then start the forecast before that period finishes to see how well it matches before making predictions. Unlike other computer modelers, climate modelers call this ‘hindcasting’ because it doesn’t sound like they are manipulating the model parameters to fit the data. The theory is, that even though climate model construction has many flaws, such as large grid sizes, patchy data of dubious quality in the early years, and poorly understood physical phenomena driving the climate that has been parameterised, that you can tune the model during hindcasting within parameter uncertainties to overcome all these deficiencies. While it’s true that you can tune the model to get a reasonable match with at least some components of history, the match isn’t unique. When computer models were first being used last century, the famous mathematician, John Von Neumann, said: “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, with five I can make him wiggle his trunk” In climate models there are hundreds of parameters that can be tuned to match history. What this means is there is an almost infinite number of ways to achieve a match. Yes, many of these are non-physical and are discarded, but there is no unique solution as the uncertainty on many of the parameters is large and as long as you tune within the uncertainty limits, innumerable matches can still be found. An additional flaw in the history matching process is the length of some of the natural cycles. For example, ocean circulation takes place over hundreds of years, and we don’t even have 100 years of data with which to match it. In addition, it’s difficult to history match to all climate variables. While global average surface temperature is the primary objective of the history matching process, other data, such a tropospheric temperatures, regional temperatures and precipitation, diurnal minimums and maximums are poorly matched. Even so, can the history matching of the primary variable, average global surface temperature, constrain the accumulating errors that inevitably occur with each model timestep? Forecasting Consider a shotgun. When the trigger is pulled, the pellets from the cartridge travel down the barrel, but there is also lateral movement of the pellets. The purpose of the shotgun barrel is to dampen the lateral movements and to narrow the spread when the pellets leave the barrel. It’s well known that shotguns have limited accuracy over long distances and there will be a shot pattern that grows with distance. The history match period for a climate model is like the barrel of the shotgun. So what happens when the model moves from matching to forecasting mode? Figure 5: IPCC models in forecast mode for the Mid-Troposphere vs Balloon and Satellite observations [5] Like the shotgun pellets leaving the barrel, numerical dispersion takes over in the forecasting phase. Each of the 73 models in Figure 5 has been history matched, but outside the constraints of the matching period, they quickly diverge. Now at most only one of these models can be correct, but more likely, none of them are. If this was a real scientific process, the hottest two thirds of the models would be rejected by the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), and further study focused on the models closest to the observations. But they don’t do that for a number of reasons. Firstly, if they reject most of the models, there would be outrage amongst the climate scientist community, especially from the rejected teams due to their subsequent loss of funding. More importantly, the so called 97% consensus would instantly evaporate. Secondly, once the hottest models were rejected, the forecast for 2100 would be about 1.5o C increase (due predominately to natural warming) and there would be no panic, and the gravy train would end. So how should the IPPC reconcile this wide range of forecasts? Imagine you wanted to know the value of bitcoin 10 years from now so you can make an investment decision today. You could consult an economist, but we all know how useless their predictions are. So instead, you consult an astrologer, but you worry whether you should bet all your money on a single prediction. Just to be safe, you consult 100 astrologers, but they give you a very wide range of predictions. Well, what should you do now? You could do what the IPCC does, and just average all the predictions. You can’t improve the accuracy of garbage by averaging it. An Alternative Approach Climate modelers claim that a history match isn’t possible without including CO2 forcing. This is may be true using the approach described here with its many approximations, and only tuning the model to a single benchmark (surface temperature) and ignoring deviations from others (such as tropospheric temperature), but analytic (as opposed to numeric) models have achieved matches without CO2 forcing. These are models, based purely on historic climate cycles that identify the harmonics using a mathematical technique of signal analysis, which deconstructs long and short term natural cycles of different periods and amplitudes without considering changes in CO2 concentration. In Figure 6, a comparison is made between the IPCC predictions and a prediction from just one analytic harmonic model that doesn’t depend on CO2 warming. A match to history can be achieved through harmonic analysis and provides a much more conservative prediction that correctly forecasts the current pause in temperature increase, unlike the IPCC models. The purpose of this example isn’t to claim that this model is more accurate, it’s just another model, but to dispel the myth that there is no way history can be explained without anthropogenic CO2 forcing and to show that it’s possible to explain the changes in temperature with natural variation as the predominant driver. Figure 6: Comparison of the IPCC model predictions with those from a harmonic analytical model [6]
The concept of “fascism” was originally entered into the Encyclopedia Italiana by Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who stated that “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” Benito Mussolini would later take credit for the quote as if he had written it himself, but it’s important to note because it outlines the primary purpose of the ideology rather than simply throwing the label around at people we don’t like as a dishonest means to undermine their legitimacy.
Despite the fact that leftists today often attack conservatives as “fascists” because of our desire to protect national boundaries and western heritage, the truth is that all fascism is deeply rooted in leftist philosophies and thinkers.
Mussolini was a long time socialist, a member of the party who greatly admired Karl Marx. He deviated from the socialists over their desire to remain neutral during WWI, and went on to champion a combination of socialism and nationalism, what we now know as fascism. Adolph Hitler was also a socialist and admirer of Karl Marx, much like Mussolini. It is actually hard to find where Marx, the communists and the fascists actually differ from each other – A deeper sense of nationalism seems to be one of the few points of contention.
Though Marx saw the existence of nation states as temporary to the proletariat and to the ruling class, he noted that the industrialists were erasing national boundaries anyway. Marx argues in the Communist Manifesto with some optimism:
“National differences and antagonisms between peoples are already tending to disappear more and more, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, the growth of free trade and a world market, and the increasing uniformity of industrial processes and of corresponding conditions of life.”
Marx saw the development of corporate power as useful and the next necessary step towards socialism, noting that joint-stock companies (corporations) and the credit system are:
“The abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself.”
In other words, corporations are viewed as a tool for the eventual transition to a socialist “Utopia” and the death of free markets. Once again, we see there is very little difference in motive between the political left and the fascists. The natural progression of every form of Marxism, communism, socialism, fascism etc. all ultimately lead to a kind of globalist ideology and erasure of cultural separation. The methods might differ slightly but the end result is the same. Some think this is a good thing, but it is actually quite poisonous.
Globalism requires an overarching social dynamic, a single hive mind, otherwise it cannot survive. If people have the ability to choose or create better options (or different options) for living then globalism loses significance. The existence of choice has to be erased. This is a behavior that the political left has fully embraced and they are more than happy to work hand-in-hand with corporate oligarchs to make their ideal system a reality. Long gone are the days of the anti-corporate progressive – They LOVE corporate dominance, but only if those companies promote and enforce leftist models for society.
Mussolini’s fascism is at the root of the very corporate governance that leftists applaud and lust after today. They have far more in common with fascists than they realize.
The new fascism is a re-branded philosophy best represented by something called “Stakeholder Capitalism.” It is a term often used by globalists at the World Economic Forum and the head of the WEF, Klaus Schwab. The media friendly definition of Stakeholder Capitalism is:
A form of capitalism in which companies do not only optimize short-term profits for shareholders, but seek long term value creation, by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.
But who are “all stakeholders” in the opinion of the WEF?
Well, according to Klaus Schwab they are all of human civilization, now and in the future. In other words, the goal of SHC is for corporate leaders and globalist bureaucracy to take responsibility for the entire world, not just their own employees, shareholders and profits. And such leaders would not be acting as individuals, they would be acting as a collective. In other words, SHC requires all major corporations to act as a single unit with a single purpose and a unified collectivist ideology – An ideological monopoly.
As Klaus Schwab states:
“The most important characteristic of the stakeholder model today is that the stakes of our system are now more clearly global. Economies, societies, and the environment are more closely linked to each other now than 50 years ago. The model we present here is therefore fundamentally global in nature, and the two primary stakeholders are as well.
…What was once seen as externalities in national economic policy making and individual corporate decision making will now need to be incorporated or internalized in the operations of every government, company, community, and individual. The planet is thus the center of the global economic system, and its health should be optimized in the decisions made by all other stakeholders.”
The SHC concept is deceptive on its very face because it pretends as if corporations will be held accountable by the public within some form of “business democracy,” as if the public will have a vote on what the corporations do. In reality, it will be corporations telling the public what is acceptable to think and do and corporations in conjunction with governments using their power to punish people who do not agree.
The great magic trick is that these same unified corporations use the shield of “private property” and business rights as a means to control society without repercussions. After all, a primary principle of conservatism and the US constitution is private property rights. So, stepping in to disrupt corporate governance would be violating one of our own beloved ideals. It sounds like a Catch-22, but it’s really not.
As mentioned above, corporations are at their very core a socialist concept: They are created through government charter, handed legal personhood and given special protections from government. They are NOT free market entities, and Adam Smith, the originator of most free market ideals, stood against corporations as destructive and prone to monopoly.
As long as they receive protections from government including monetary stimulus and bailouts, corporations should not enjoy the same private property protections as regular businesses do. They are parasitic creations, alien to the natural business world. In a freedom-based society they would be dismantled to prevent authoritarian outcomes.
Stakeholder Capitalism is also an incredibly arrogant premise because it assumes that corporate leaders have the wisdom or objective intelligence to expand their role beyond business and into social and political spheres. This has already happened in many respects with much chaos created, but open corporate governance is the end game and it is anything but objective or benevolent.
What are some examples of this kind of corporate/political governance (fascism) in action?
How about Big Tech social media censorship leaning HEAVILY against conservatives and liberty activists? How about evidence of collusion between Big Tech companies and government, such as the Biden Administration and the DHS working closely with Twitter and Facebook to actively remove voices and viewpoints they don’t like? How about corporate leaders colluding to destroy conservative based social media competitors like Parler?
How about ESG loans funded by corporate backers such as Blackrock or globalist non-profits like the Rockefeller Foundation?
If all corporate lenders applied ESG to their loan practices, all individuals and businesses would have to adopt leftist social ideologies and dubious environmental claims in order to have access to credit. ESG is a monetary incentive created by corporate elites to keep all other businesses in line. If it continues, ESG could wipe out political opposition to globalism in the span of a single generation.
And, what about the Council For Inclusive Capitalism? This is the most blatant expression of open global fascism I have ever seen, with money elites and politicians working in concert with the UN and even religious leaders like Pope Francis. Their goal is to institute a single centralized world governing platform built around the same agendas outlined in ESG and SHC, making corporations members of a new global council which they refer to as “The Guardians.” They aren’t even trying to hide the conspiracy anymore, it’s right out in the open.
Klaus Schwab takes special care to mention often that global crisis events are the “opportunity” that is needed to push the public into the arms of Stakeholder Capitalism through a nexus point called “The Great Reset.” Meaning, he thinks that widespread fear and desperation must exist (or be engineered) to perpetuate the SHC framework quickly.
Obviously, the globalists are on a shrinking timeline, though it’s hard to say why. They are tearing off the mask faster in the past two years than they have in the previous decade. More than likely they understand to some degree that if they go too slow the public will have time to mount a defense against them.
They will conjure all kinds of distractions and scapegoats to prevent liberty minded people from hitting them back. They’ll aim us at Russia, they’ll aim us at China, they’ll aim us at useful idiots among the leftists. They’ll aim Russia, China and the leftists at us. They will try to send us to war, they will call us insurrectionists, they will call us terrorists, they will say we started the whole collapse and that we are to blame for the world’s ills. None of this matters. What matters is that the globalists at the top pay the price for the harm they cause.
When the head of the snake is removed, only then can we sort out who is to blame; who were the heroes, who were the villains, and who were the idiots. Only then can we rebuild with true freedom in mind.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Figure 1: Incremental warming effect of CO2 alone [1]
Figure 2: Typical grid used in climate models [2]
Figure 3: Global weather stations circa 1885 [3]
Figure 4: How grid cells interact with adjacent cells [4]
Figure 5: IPCC models in forecast mode for the Mid-Troposphere vs Balloon and Satellite observations [5]
Figure 6: Comparison of the IPCC model predictions with those from a harmonic analytical model [6]
Centinel2012 
