QUESTION: What proof do you have that there is higher volatility in weather? I think you just make this up. I have not seen anywhere else with claims of new high and low records. Humans are responsible for climate change. You are spreading propaganda yourself.

JG

ANSWER: Well here is the list published by the NOAA that shows there have been 17,082 new record daily highs and 17.068 new record lows. If this is what you believe, then stop heating your home in the winter or using air conditioning. Quit your job, stay home. Do not use any public transportation. Grow your own food because even buying a head of lettuce means a truck has to deliver it to the store. You better not read a newspaper, for you are continuing to cutting down trees that suck up CO2. Then again, turn off your computer because even reading this consumes electricity and you are destroying the planet every second, according to your theory.

Do all that and if you are still alive after one year, then let me know how you survived.

For the rest of us who are objective, the VOLATILITY our computer has been forecasting is precisely on target. We have just over 17,000 new record highs and over 17,000 new record lows. That is what we call VOLATILITY in market-terms.

What is difficult to forecast short-term is the polar shifts. The magnetic North Pole is wandering about 34 miles (55 kilometers) a year. The North Magnetic Pole has moved so much, so fast, that a group of scientists rushed to change a model that helps guide shipping, airplanes, and submarines to know where they are in the Arctic Ocean. In February 2019, the scientists released new information on the North Magnetic Pole. They had to readjust everything sooner than normal. Liquid metal at the center of our planet produces the magnetic field. What is also taking place is that the liquid movements result in the change in the location of the magnetic north, which is always changing. I am sure they would love to figure out a theory that they could blame humans for that as well.

What we DO NOT KNOW is whether the pole shift (which is overdue) was also impacted by the decline in the energy output of the sun. Is the climate change (which always changes) also linked on a correlated basis to major pole shifts? There may be some correlation here. This certainly warrants careful analysis.

There are hard links between the world’s largest financial groups, including Goldman Sachs, pushing the climate change agenda by selling “Green Bonds” which are the latest scheme on how to lose a lot of money very fast. They promise to be great sellers as they whip people up into believing they can do their part by purchasing green climate bonds.

The goal is to tap into literally trillions of dollars in the bond markets by capturing new wealth from a younger generation ignorant of investment. There are major global banks and financial giants with their hands out hoping to get more than a fair share of a market that loses money with good consistency.

The fossil-fuel-free investment movement was gaining momentum. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund claimed it had blacklisted most hydrocarbon energy producers. However, in a country where its wealth has come from oil, it seems a bit odd. They did backtrack slightly and clarified to say they would still allow investments in integrated energy groups that were at least moving in the right direction.

The last time there was such a movement with a moral divestment was in the tobacco industry. That turned out to be more show than truth and it merely resulted in the entire sector being converted into value-orientated income stocks.

It appears that as the West seems to pretend it has a conscience, they seem to be selling to state-owned institutions that are owned by Russians, Chinese, or Middle Eastern entities. It is merely changing ownership, not actually shutting down the companies or changing the use the fossil fuels.

Amazingly, among the list of 11,000 climate experts includes Mickey Mouse from the Mickey Mouse Institute For the Blind. No one in the press bothered to verify such a claim despite 11,000 scientists claiming to have signed something that no legitimate scientist would EVER ascribe to. This outrageous paper claimed to be supported by 11,000 scientists states:

The solution is replacing fossil fuels, reduce methane gas, eating less meat, restoring ecosystems, outlawing a carbon-based economy, reducing population growth, and educating girls not to have children.

It is curious that the very same goal of reducing the population began during the environmental movement for wetlands. It is clear that these people believe in reducing the population, but their arguments will impact ONLY the industrial world so the population will continue to grow in Africa, Asia, and South America. The third world sees this as the oppression that they should not now develop. Why don’t they pass a law making it illegal to heat your home or use air conditioning? Would they also be in favor of pulling the plug on hospitals for consuming electricity to save lives they think should be terminated provided it is not theirs?