Thursday, September 29, 2016

Greenpeace co-founder – Carbon dioxide is a hero, not a villain – Video


Please share this must-watch video with your “warmist” friends. Seriously. Try to talk them into watching this. It could change their perceptions forever.

I have many friends (and probably relatives) who sincerely want to help the planet. They are not bad people. Nor are they part of some devious conspiracy aiming to de-populate the planet. They simply do not realize that they are being conned about the dangers of carbon dioxide (CO2).

This video by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, PhD., might begin to persuade them.


CO2, the real story!


Please share this must-watch video with your “warmist” friends. Seriously. Try to talk them into watching this. It could change their perceptions forever.

I have many friends (and probably relatives) who sincerely want to help the planet. They are not bad people. Nor are they part of some devious conspiracy aiming to de-populate the planet. They simply do not realize that they are being conned about the dangers of carbon dioxide (CO2).

This video by Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, PhD., might begin to persuade them.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Political Science: A Reply to the 375 Concerned Members of the National Academy of Sciences BREITBART.COM


<> on January 21, 2016 in Washington, DC.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, William M. Briggs, David R. Legates, Anthony Lupo, Istvan Marko, Dennis Mitchell, & Willie Soon25 Sep 2016452

25 Sep, 2016 25 Sep, 2016


Some 375 political activists attached to the National Academy of Sciences, supporting the totalitarian view on the climate question, have recently issued an open letter saying we “caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”

In fact, the extent of our influence on climate is not “settled science.” Only 0.3% of twelve thousand papers published in learned journals claimed that recent warming was mostly manmade. The 375 activists are entitled to their opinion, but the scientific community’s peer-reviewed results overwhelmingly fail to endorse their narrow view that recent warming was predominately manmade.


True, we influence climate, by returning to the air some of the carbon dioxide that was there before. But so do termites, by emitting more methane than all the world’s farm animals combined. So do plants, by taking carbon dioxide; storing the carbon in leaves, stems, and trunks; and returning the oxygen to the air. So does the Sun, by supplying nearly all the Earth’s radiant energy. So do volcanoes, by emitting hot rocks that warm the air and ejecta that shade the Earth from the Sun and cause cooling. So do the oceans, by helping to keep the Earth’s temperature within a few degrees either side of the period mean for more than 800,000 years.

The activists say we are warming the oceans. But in the first 11 full years of the least ill-resolved dataset we have, the 3500+ Argo bathythermograph buoys, the upper mile and a quarter of the world’s oceans warmed at a rate equivalent to just 1 Celsius degree every 430 years, and the warming rate, negligible at the surface, rises faster the deeper the measurements are taken. The oceans are warming not from above, which they would if we were warming the air and the air was warming the oceans, but from below.

The activists say we are warming the lower atmosphere. Yet on all datasets, the atmosphere is warming at less than half the rate originally predicted by their fellow-activists at the error-prone Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — who have a vested interest in overstating the supposed extent of our influence on climate. For, otherwise, the Panel would be – as it should now be – abolished. The Panel is political, but science is not science unless it is scientific, and unless it is free, in particular, from the political totalitarianism that sullenly insists that only one opinion – the Party Line – may be uttered.

The activists say the oceans are “acidifying.” The truth is that, aside from a few transects and a few local studies, science has no idea whether or at what rate the oceans are “acidifying.” What is known, however, is that the oceans are not acid (as rainwater is): they are pronouncedly alkaline. It is also known that, under anything like modern conditions, they are so powerfully buffered that alkaline they must remain.

The activists say our influence on climate is evident in “altered rainfall patterns,” but in this they are at odds with their fellow-activists at the ill-fated Intergovernmental Panel, whose special report on extreme weather (2012) and whose fifth and most recent (2013) Assessment Report on the climate question find little or no evidence of a link between our industries and enterprises on the one hand and global rainfall patterns on the other.

The activists say we are to blame for retreating Arctic sea ice. But Arctic sea ice variations, if objectively quantified with proper error estimates, are fully within the large natural range of changes that have no need of any unique explanation by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. In addition, Antarctic sea ice, which they somehow do not mention, has largely offset the loss of Arctic ice.

True scientists, like any other citizens, are entitled and even encouraged to take part in the political process, and to state their opinions. This applies to non-USA-citizens, which many of the 375 are. What true scientists must not do, however, is pretend, as the activists did, that their totalitarian point of view is unchallengeable. In all material respects, unfolding events have proven their extremist viewpoint prodigiously exaggerated at best, plain wrong at worst.

Specifically, the activists complain that, during the presidential primary campaign, “claims were made that the Earth is not warming.” Yet early in the primary campaign it was correct to say the Earth had not been warming for almost 19 years. More recently there has been a naturally-occurring El NiƱo event, which has raised the trend a little, but it remains true that the early predictions of medium-term warming were badly exaggerated.

The activists declare their faith in the doctrine “that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks” to everything from national security via health and agriculture to biodiversity. But this statement is based wholly on faith and is unsupported by reality. We know this because of the serially failed predictions made by alarmists.

The activists say, “We know that the climate system has tipping points.” Yet, revealingly, “Tipping point” is not a scientific but a political term. The activists say that “rapid warming of the planet increases the risk of crossing climatic points of no return,” but there is no evidence for rapid warming of the planet today. At the end of the Maunder Minimum, the Earth’s atmosphere warmed more rapidly in response to the naturally-occurring recovery of solar activity from 1695-1735 than it has warmed in any subsequent 40-year period. There is nothing unprecedented either about today’s global temperatures or about the rate at which those temperatures have been changing.

The activists say warmer weather will “possibly” set in motion “large-scale ocean circulation changes.” The scientific truth is that, while the wind blows, the Earth rotates and its land-masses are approximately where they are, the ocean circulation must remain much as it is now. To suggest otherwise is mere rodomontade.

The activists say warmer weather will cause “the loss of major ice sheets.” But if the great ice sheet that covered most of North America to a depth of two miles had not melted owing to naturally-occurring global warming 10,000 years ago, where would the United States be today? Antarctic snowfall accumulation has not exhibited a massive meltdown over the past 40 to 60 years, and there has been no change to speak of in northern-hemisphere snow cover. There is little evidence that the tiny global warming that has occurred is at all likely to have major effects, whether on the cryosphere or on anything else, and still less evidence that those effects would be deleterious, and still less that, even if they were deleterious, the proposed measures to prevent them would make any detectable difference, and still less that, even if proposed measures might work, the imagined benefits would exceed the extravagant cost of their implementation.

The activists are also wrong in their assertion that any appreciable human influence on the climate will be detectable for many thousands of years. Their fellow activists on the Panel say that very nearly all of the feedbacks from the small warming that may be caused by our enriching the atmosphere with plant food act over timescales of hours to – at most – decades.

The activists are wrong to state that “it is of great concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord.” On the scientific evidence to date, it is abundantly clear that the original predictions made by the totalitarians were extreme exaggerations; that, though the world may warm a little, it will not warm a lot; that adding CO2 to the air will be of benefit to plants in reducing their need for water, which is why the world’s desert regions are beginning to green; and that the cost of futilely playing Canute with the climate is 10-100 times greater than the cost of any realistically foreseeable net disbenefit from warmer weather.

It would, therefore, be entirely proper for a presidential candidate to argue that the United States should withdraw from the Paris climate treaty, except for one inconvenient truth. The United States has not ratified the treaty. Any such ratification requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate, and the collapse of the totalitarians’ scientific case for “climate action” now renders any such two-thirds majority impossible to achieve.

Though the activists have attempted – falsely and improperly – to convey the impression that it is somehow illegal, immoral or damaging to the planet to vote for the Republican party’s candidate in the forthcoming presidential election because he disagrees with the totalitarian position on the climate question that they espouse with such religious fervor and such disregard for science, in truth it is not the business of scientists to abuse the authority of their white lab-coats by collectively suggesting that “Science” demands the voters should or should not cast their vote in any particular direction.

Therefore, the signatories hereto repudiate the letter issued by the 375 activists as reflecting not scientific truth but quasi-religious dogma and totalitarian error; we urge the voters to disregard that regrettable and anti-scientific letter; and we invite every citizen to make up his or her own mind whom to elect to the nation’s highest office without fear of the multifarious bugaboos conjured into terrifying but scientifically unjustifiable existence by the totalitarian activists who have for decades so disrespected, disgraced and disfigured climate science.

The Experiment: Capitalism versus Socialism From WUWT

Guest Blogger / 3 days ago September 23, 2016

Paul Driessen writes:

University of Delaware climatology professor (and amateur history buff) David Legates offers some fascinating insights into a persuasive socio-economic experiment. His analysis could provide handy intellectual ammunition for ongoing battles between free enterprise-oriented Republicans and committed socialists in the Democratic camp.

What if we could destroy a country’s political and economic fabric through a natural disaster – or a war – and then rebuild one half of it using capitalism as its base, while the other rebuilds on a socialist foundation? David wonders. Let the virtues of each system work their magic, and then see where the two new countries are after fifty years. Actually, he says, we’ve already performed The Experiment. It’s post-war Germany – and the outcome ought to end the debate over which system is better.

The Experiment:  Capitalism versus Socialism

What if we could have an experiment to compare the two systems? Wait – we already did.

David R. Legates

Experimentation is a major tool in the scientist’s arsenal. We can put the same strain of bacteria into two Petri dishes, for example, and compare the relative effects of two different antibiotics.

What if we could do the same with economic systems? We could take a country and destroy its political and economic fabric through, say, a natural disaster or widespread pestilence – or a war. War is the ultimate political and economic cleansing agent. Its full devastation can send a country back almost to the beginning of civilization.

We could then take this war-torn country and divide it into two parts. It would have similar people, similar climate, similar potential trading partners, similar geography – but one part is rebuilt using capitalism as its base, while the other rebuilds using socialism and its principles. We’d let the virtues of each system play out and see where these two new countries would be after, say, fifty years.

Don’t you wonder what the outcome might be? Well, as it turns out, we have already performed The Experiment. It’s post-war Germany.

Following the devastation of World War II, Germany was split into two parts. The German Federal Republic, or West Germany, was rebuilt in the image of the western allies and a capitalist legal-political-economic system.  By contrast, the German Democratic Republic, or East Germany, was reconstructed using the socialist/communist principles championed by the Soviet Union. The Experiment pitted the market economy of the West against the command economy of the East.

On the western side, considering what’s being taught in our schools, one might expect that “greedy capitalism” would create a state where a few people became the rich elite, while the vast majority were left as deprived masses. Socialism, by contrast, promised East Germany the best that life had to offer, through rights guaranteed by the state, including “human rights” to employment and living wages, time for rest and leisure, health care and elder care, and guaranteed housing, education and cultural programs.

So the Petri dishes were set, and The Experiment began. In 1990, after just 45 years, The Experiment abruptly and surprisingly ended – with reunification back into a single country. How did it work out?

In West Germany, capitalism rebuilt the devastated country into a political and economic power in Europe, rivaled only by its former enemy, Great Britain. Instead of creating a rich 1% and a poor 99%, West Germans thrived: average West Germans were considerably wealthier than their Eastern counterparts. The country developed economically, and its people enjoyed lives with all the pleasures that wealth, modern technologies and quality free time could provide.

By contrast, East Germany’s socialist policies created a state that fell woefully behind. Its people were much poorer; property ownership was virtually non-existent amid a collectivist regime; food and material goods were scarce and expensive, available mostly to Communist Party elites; spies were everywhere, and people were summarily arrested and jailed; the state pretended to pay its workers, and they pretended to work. A wall of concrete, barbed wire and guard towers was built to separate the two halves of Berlin – and keep disgruntled Eastern citizens from defecting to the West. Many who tried to leave were shot.

By the time of reunification, productivity in East Germany was barely 70% of that in West Germany. The West boasted large, vibrant industries and other highly productive sectors, while dirty antiquated factories and outmoded farming methods dominated the East. Even staples like butter, eggs and chicken – abundant and affordable in West Germany – were twice as expensive in the eastern “workers’ paradise.”

Coffee was seven times more expensive, while gasoline and laundry detergent were more than 2½ times more expensive. Luxury items, like automobiles and men’s suits were twice as expensive, color televisions five times more costly. About the only staple that was cheaper in East Germany were potatoes, which could be distilled into vodka, so that lower caste East Germans could commiserate better with their abundant Russian comrades.

Moreover, state-guaranteed health care in the East did not translate into a healthier society. In 1990, life expectancy in the West was about 3½ years longer than in the East for men, and more than 2½ years longer for women. Studies found that unfavorable working conditions, psychological reactions to political suppression, differences in cardiovascular risk factors and lifestyles, and lower standards of medical technology in East Germany were largely responsible for their lower health standards.

The socialist mentality of full employment for everyone led to more women working in the East than in the West. This pressure resulted in better childcare facilities in East Germany, as mothers there returned to work sooner after giving birth and were more inclined to work full-time – or more compelled to work, to put food on the table, which meant they had to work full-time and run the household. This also meant East German children had far less contact with their parents and families, even as West Germans became convinced that children fared better under their mothers’ loving care than growing up in nurseries.

As the education system in East Germany was deeply rooted in socialism, the state ran an extensive network of schools that indoctrinated children into the socialist system from just after their birth to the university level. While it’s true that today East Germans perform better at STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) studies than their Western counterparts, that may be explained in part by the influx of numerous poorly educated immigrants to former West German areas, and the extensive money invested in the eastern region since reunification.

However, schools of the East were not intended to establish creative thinking, which results in creativity and innovation. Rather, they were authoritarian and rigid, encouraging collective group-think and consensus ideas, rather than fostering outside-the-box thinking, novel philosophies and enhanced productivity. Thus, East German technology was slow to develop and students were often overqualified for available jobs.

Did the East gain any advantage? Nudism was more prevalent in the East, if that was your thing.  Personal interaction was higher too, because telephones and other technologies were lacking. But even though East Germany was much better off than other Soviet satellite countries (a tribute to innate German resourcefulness), East German socialism offered few advantages over its capitalist western counterpart.  In fact, in the years since reunification, homogenization of Germany has been slow, due largely to the legacy of years lived under socialist domination, where any work ethic was unrewarded, even repressed.

Freedom was the single most important ingredient that caused West Germany to succeed. Freedom is the elixir that fuels innovation, supports a diversity of thought, and allows people to become who they want to be, not what the state demands they must be. When the government guarantees equality of outcomes, it also stifles the creativity, diversity, ingenuity and reward systems that allow people and countries to grow, develop and prosper. The Experiment has proven this.

These days in the United States, however, forgetful, unobservant and ideological politicians are again touting the supposed benefits of socialism. Government-provided health and elder care, free tuition, paid day care and pre-school education, guaranteed jobs and wages are all peddled by candidates who feel government can and should care for us from cradle to grave. They apparently think East German socialism is preferable to West German capitalism. Have they learned nothing from The Experiment?

A friend of mine believes capitalism is greedy and evil – and socialism, if “properly implemented,” will take us forward to realizing a better future. I counter that The Experiment proves society is doomed to mediocrity at best under autocratic socialism. Indeed, those who turn toward the Siren call of socialism always crash upon its rocks. But my friend assures me: “Trust me, this time it will be different.”

That’s what they always say. Perhaps Venezuela and Cuba are finally making socialism work?

David R. Legates, PhD, CCM, is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware in Newark, Delaware. His views do not represent those of the University of Delaware.

About these ads

Friday, September 23, 2016

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment


Replicating Al Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment (from the 24 hour Gore-a-thon) shows that his “high school physics” could never work as advertised

Readers may recall my previous essay where I pointed out how Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 Video, used in his “24 hours of climate reality”, had some serious credibility issues with editing things to make it appear as if they had actually performed the experiment, when they clearly did not. It has taken me awhile to replicate the experiment. Delays were a combination of acquisition and shipping problems, combined with my availability since I had to do this on nights and weekends. I worked initially using the original techniques and equipment, and I’ve replicated the Climate 101 experiment in other ways using improved equipment. I’ve compiled several videos. My report follows.

First. as a refresher, here’s the Climate 101 video again:

I direct your attention to the 1 minute mark, lasting through 1:30, where the experiment is presented.

And here’s my critique of it: Video analysis and scene replication suggests that Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project fabricated their Climate 101 video “Simple Experiment”

The most egregious faked presentation in that video was the scene with the split screen thermometers, edited to appear as if the temperature in the jar of elevated CO2 level was rising faster than the jar without elevated CO2 level.

It turns out that the thermometers were never in the jar recording the temperature rise presented in the split screen and the entire presentation was nothing but stagecraft and editing.

This was proven beyond a doubt by the photoshop differencing technique used to compare each side of the split screen. With the exception of the moving thermometer fluid, both sides were identical.

difference process run at full resolution – click to enlarge

Exposing this lie to the viewers didn’t set well with some people, include the supposed “fairness” watchdogs over at Media Matters, who called the analysis a “waste of time”. Of course it’s only a “waste of time” when you prove their man Gore was faking the whole thing, otherwise they wouldn’t care. Personally I consider it a badge of honor for them to take notice because they usually reserve such vitriol for high profile news they don’t like, so apparently I have “arrived”.

The reason why I took so much time then to show this chicanery was Mr. Gore’s pronouncement in an interview the day the video aired.

His specific claim was:

“The deniers claim that it’s some kind of hoax and that the global scientific community is lying to people,” he said. “It’s not a hoax, it’s high school physics.” – Al Gore in an interview with MNN 9/14/2011

So easy a high school kid can do it. Right?

Bill Nye, in his narration at 0:48 in the video says:

You can replicate this effect yourself in a simple lab experiment, here’s how.

…and at 1:10 in the video Nye says:

Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.

So, I decided to find out if that was true and if anyone could really replicate that claim, or if this was just more stagecraft chicanery. I was betting that nobody on Gore’s production team actually did this experiment, or if they did do it, it wasn’t successful, because otherwise, why would they have to fake the results in post production?

The split screen video at 1:17, a screencap of which is a few paragraphs above shows a temperature difference of 2°F. Since Mr. Gore provided no other data, I’ll use that as the standard to meet for a successful experiment.

The first task is to get all the exact same equipment. Again, since Mr. Gore doesn’t provide anything other than the video, finding all of that took some significant effort and time. There’s no bill of materials to work with so I had to rely on finding each item from the visuals. While I found the cookie jars and oral thermometers early on, finding the lamp fixtures, the heat lamps for them, the CO2 tank and the CO2 tank valve proved to be more elusive. Surprisingly, the valve turned out to be the hardest of all items to locate, taking about two weeks from the time I started searching to the time I had located it, ordered it and it arrived. The reason? It isn’t called a valve, but rather a “In-Line On/Off Air Adapter”. Finding the terminology was half the battle. Another surprise was finding that the heat lamps and fixtures were for lizards and terrariums and not some general purpose use. Fortunately the fixtures and lamps were sold together by the same company. While the fixtures supported up to 150 watts, Mr. Gore made no specification on bulb type or wattage, so I chose the middle of the road 100 watt bulbs from the 50, 100, and 150 watt choices available.

I believe that I have done due diligence (as much as possible given no instructions from Gore) and located all the original equipment to accurately replicate the experiment as it was presented. Here’s the bill of materials and links to suppliers needed to replicate Al Gore’s experiment as it is shown in the Climate 101 video:



QTY 2 Anchor Hocking Cookie Jar with Lid

QTY2 Geratherm Oral Thermometer Non-Mercury

QTY 2 Globe Coin Bank

QTY 2 Fluker`s Repta Clamp-Lamp with Ceramic Sockets for Terrariums (max 150 watts, 8 1/2 Inch Bulb)

QTY2 Zoo Med Red Infrared Heat Lamp 100W

QTY1 Empire – Pure Energy – Aluminum Co2 Tank – 20 oz

QTY 1 RAP4 In-Line On/Off Air Adapter

QTY 1 flexible clear plastic hose, 48″ in length, from local Lowes hardware to fit RAP4 In-Line On/Off Air Adapter above.


Additionally, since Mr. Gore never actually proved that CO2 had been released from the CO2 paintball tank into one of the jars, I ordered a portable CO2 meter for just that purpose:

It has a CO2 metering accuracy of: ± 50ppm ±5% reading value. While not laboratory grade, it works well enough to prove the existence of elevated CO2 concentrations in one of the jars. It uses a non-dispersive infrared diffusion sensor (NDIR) which is self calibrating, which seems perfect for the job.

carbon dioxide temperature humidity monitorData Sheet


Once I got all of the equipment in, the job was to do some testing to make sure it all worked. I also wanted to be sure the two oral thermometers were calibrated such they read identically. For that, I prepared a water bath to conduct that experiment.

CAVEAT: For those that value form over substance, yes these are not slick professionally edited videos like Mr. Gore presented. They aren’t intended to be. They ARE intended to be a complete, accurate, and most importantly unedited record of the experimental work I performed. Bear in mind that while Mr. Gore has million$ to hire professional studios and editors, all I have is a consumer grade video camera, my office and my wits. If I were still working in broadcast television, you can bet I would have done this in the TV studio.


STEP 1 Calibrate the Oral Thermometers

Here’s my first video showing how I calibrated the oral thermometers, which is very important if you want to have an accurate experimental result.

Note that the two thermometers read 98.1°F at the conclusion of the test, as shown in this screencap from my video @ about 5:35:

STEP 2 Calibrate the Infrared Thermometer

Since I plan to make use of an electronic Infrared thermometer in these experiments, I decided to calibrate it against the water bath also. Some folks may see this as unnecessary, since it is pre-calibrated, but I decided to do it anyway. It makes for interesting viewing


STEP 3 Demonstrate how glass blocks IR using  the Infrared Thermometer

The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.

Image from:

Mr. Gore was attempting to demonstrate this effect in his setup, but there’s an obvious problem: he used infrared heat lamps rather than visible light lamps. Thus, it seems highly likely that the glass jars would block the incoming infrared, and convert it to heat. That being the case, the infrared radiative backscattering effect that makes up the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere couldn’t possibly be demonstrated here in the Climate 101 video.

By itself, that would be enough to declare the experiment invalid, but not only will I show the problem of the experimental setup being flawed, I’ll go to full on replication.

Using the warm water bath and the infrared thermometer, it becomes easy to demonstrate this effect.

Since Mr. Gore’s experiment used infrared heat lamps illuminating two glass jars, I decided to test that as well:


STEP 4 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment exactly, using the same equipment – duration of 10 minutes

At 1:10 in the Climate 101 video narrator Bill Nye the science guy says:

Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.

Since this is “simple high school physics” according to Mr. Gore, this should be a cinch to replicate. I took a “within minutes” from the narration to be just that, so I tried an experiment with 10 minutes of duration. I also explain the experimental setup and using the CO2 meter prove that CO2 is in fact injected into Jar “B”. My apologies for the rambling dialog, which wasn’t scripted, but explained as I went along. And, the camera work is one-handed while I’m speaking and setting up the experiment, so what it lacks in production quality it makes up in reality.

You’ll note that after 10 minutes, it appears there was no change in either thermometer. Also, remember these are ORAL thermometers, which hold the reading (so you can take it out of your mouth and hand it to mom and ask “can I stay home from school today”?). So for anyone concerned about the length of time after I turned off the lamps, don’t be. In order to reset the thermometers you have to shake them to force the liquid back down into the bulb.

Here’s the screencaps of the two thermometer readings from Jar A and B:

Clearly, 10 minutes isn’t enough time for the experiment to work. So let’s scratch off the idea from narration of “a few minutes” and go for a longer period:

RESULT: No change, no difference in temperature. Nothing near the 2°F rise shown in the video. Inconclusive.


STEP 5 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment exactly, using the same equipment – duration of 30 minutes

Ok, identical setup as before, the only difference is time, the experiment runs 30 minutes long. I’ve added a digital timer you can watch as the experiment progresses.

And here are the screencaps from the video above of the results:

RESULT: slight rise and difference in temperature 97.4°F for Jar “A” Air, and 97.2°F for Jar “B” CO2. Nothing near the 2°F rise shown in the video.


STEP 6 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment, using digital logging thermometer – duration of 30 minutes

In this experiment, I’m substituting the liquid in glass oral thermometers with some small self contained battery powered digital logging thermometers with LCD displays.

This model:

Details here

Specification Sheet / Manual
USB-2-LCD+ Temperature Datalogger

I used two identical units in the experiment replication:

And here are the results graphed by the application that comes with the datalogger. Red is Temperature, Blue is Humidity, Green is dewpoint

The graphs are automatically different vertical scales and thus can be a bit confusing, so I’ve take the raw data for each and graphed temperature only:

After watching my own video, I was concerned that maybe I was getting a bit of a direct line of the visible portion of the heat lamp into the sensor housing onto the thermistor, since they were turned on their side. So I ran the experiment again with the dataloggers mounted vertically in paper cups to ensure the thermistors were shielded from any direct radiation at any wavelength. See this video:

Both runs of the USB datalogger are graphed together below:


Run 1 slight rise and difference in temperature 43.5°C for Jar “A” Air with Brief pulse to 44°C , and 43.0°C for Jar “B” CO2.

Run 2 had an ended with a 1°C difference, with plain air in Jar A being warmer than Jar “B with CO2.

Jar “A” Air temperature led Jar “B” CO2 during the entire experiment on both runs

The datalogger output files are available here:

JarA Air only run1.txt JarB CO2 run1.txt

JarA Air only run2.txt JarB CO2 run2.txt


STEP 7 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment exactly, using a high resolution NIST calibrated digital logging thermometer – duration of 30 minutes

In this experiment I use a high resolution (0.1F resolution) and NIST calibrated data logger with calibrated probes. Data was collected over my LAN to special software. This is the datalogger model:

Data sheet: Model E Series And the software used to log data is described here

Here’s the experiment:

I had to spend a lot of time waiting for the Jar “B” probe to come to parity with Jar “A” due to the cooling effect of the CO2 I introduced. As we all know, when a gas expands it cools, and that’s exactly what happens to CO2 released under pressure. You can see the effect early in the flat area of the graph below.

Here’s the end result screencap real-time graphing software used in the experiment, click the image to expand the graph full size.


Peak value Jar A with air  was at 18:04 117.3°F

Peak value Jar B with CO2 was at 18:04 116.7°F

Once again, air led CO2 through the entire experiment.

Note that I allowed this experiment to go through a cool down after I turned off the Infrared heat lamps, which is the slope after the peak. Interestingly, while Jar “A” (probe1 in green) with Air, led Jar “B” (Probe 2 in red) with CO2, the positions reversed shortly after the lamps turned off.

The CO2 filled jar was now losing heat slower than the plain air jar, even though plain air Jar “A” had warmed slightly faster than the CO2 Jar “B”.

Here’s the datalogger output files for each probe:

Climate101-replication-Probe01-(JarA – Air).csv

Climate101-replication-Probe02-(JarB – CO2).csv

Climate101-replication-Probe03-(Ambient Air).csv

What could explain this reversal after the lamps were turned off? The answer is here at the Engineer’s Edge in the form of this table:

Heat Transfer Table of Content

This chart gives the thermal conductivity of gases as a function of temperature.

Unless otherwise noted, the values refer to a pressure of 100 kPa (1 bar) or to the saturation vapor pressure if that is less than 100 kPa.

The notation P = 0 indicates the low pressure limiting value is given. In general, the P = 0 and P = 100 kPa values differ by less than 1%.

Units are milliwatts per meter kelvin.

Note the values for Air and for CO2 that I highlighted in the 300K column. 300K is 80.3°F.

Air is a better conductor of heat than CO2.


So, here is what I think is going on with Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 experiment.
  1. As we know, the Climate101 video used infrared heat lamps
  2. The glass cookie jars chosen don’t allow the full measure of infrared from the lamps to enter the center of the jar and affect the gas. I showed this two different ways with the infrared camera in videos above.
  3. During the experiments, I showed the glass jars heating up using the infrared camera. Clearly they were absorbing the infrared energy from the lamps.
  4. The gases inside the jars, air and pure CO2 thus had to be heated by secondary heat emission from the glass as it was being heated. They were not absorbing infrared from the lamps, but rather heat from contact with the glass.
  5. Per the engineering table, air is a better conductor of heat than pure CO2, so it warms faster, and when the lamps are turned off, it cools faster.
  6. The difference value of 2°F shown in the Climate 101 video split screen was never met in any of the experiments I performed.
  7. The condition stated in the Climate 101 video of “Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.” was not met in any of the experiments I performed. In fact it was exactly the opposite. Air consistently warmed faster than CO2.
  8. Thus, the experiment as designed by Mr. Gore does not show the greenhouse effect as we know it in our atmosphere, it does show how heat transfer works and differences in heat transfer rates with different substances, but nothing else.

Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 experiment is falsified, and could not work given the equipment he specified. If they actually tried to perform the experiment themselves, perhaps this is why they had to resort to stagecraft in the studio to fake the temperature rise on the split screen thermometers.

The experiment as presented by Al Gore and Bill Nye “the science guy” is a failure, and not representative of the greenhouse effect related to CO2 in our atmosphere. The video as presented, is not only faked in post production, the premise is also false and could never work with the equipment they demonstrated. Even with superior measurement equipment it doesn’t work, but more importantly, it couldn’t work as advertised.

The design failure was the glass cookie jar combined with infrared heat lamps.

Gore FAIL.


UPDATE: 4PM PST Some commenters are taking away far more than intended from this essay. Therefore I am repeating this caveat I posted in my first essay where I concentrated on the video editing and stagecraft issues:

I should make it clear that I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science. What I am saying is that Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality Project did a poor job of demonstrating an experiment, so poor in fact that they had to fabricate portions of the presentation, and that the experiment itself (if they actually did it, we can’t tell) would show a completely different physical mechanism than what actually occurs in our atmosphere.

No broader take away (other than the experiment was faked and fails) was intended, expressed or implied – Anthony

About these ads

Monday, September 19, 2016

Massive Cover-Up Exposed: Lying Alarmists Rebranded 70s Global Cooling Scare as a Myth Breitbart


by James Delingpole14 Sep 2016972

14 Sep, 2016 14 Sep, 2016

Everyone knows that before the global warming scare began in the 1980s, scientists were much more worried about global cooling and the coming ice age.

At least everybody did till a cabal of lying climate alarmists – one then a senior administrator at NOAA, now a president at the World Meteorological Association –  hijacked Wikipedia, published a lying paper, and rewrote history by painting the 1970s Global Cooling Scare as an urban myth.

Now the full extent of these activists’ skullduggery has been uncovered by researcher Kenneth Richard, writing at No Tricks Zone.

Richard shows that during the 1960s and 1970s, there was an 86 percent scientific consensus that the planet was on a cooling path. But this was airbrushed out of history so successfully that even now if you do a Google search on “70s global cooling scare” the top results claim it never really happened.

The top result is this one from Wikipedia on Global Cooling, which says:

This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

This is flat-out untrue – in fact the vast majority of scientific papers (220 out of 264) supported the cooling thesis – and makes a mockery of Jimmy Wales’s oft-expressed desire to reduce Wikipedia’s outrageous left-wing bias.

Possibly, the misleading entry is a hangover from the extraordinary period in which William Connolley, a Green party member – then working for the British Antarctic Survey – was able to abuse his Wikipedia administrator status by rewriting thousands of Wikipedia articles in order to give them the ‘correct’ alarmist spin. This scandal was exposed by Lawrence Solomon in the National Post.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand.

When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

Connolley was an associate of the alarmist propaganda site RealClimate which he co-founded with several of the world’s most egregious alarmists, among them, Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann and Gavin Schmidt, notorious for his data manipulations at NASA.

It was Connolley too who co-authored the hugely influential and utterly mendacious 2008 paper The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus . Another of its authors Thomas C Peterson was formerly Principal Scientist at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Education and now rejoices in the title President of the World Meteorological Association’s Commission for Climatology.

The paper, published in the prestigious American Meteorological Society journal, was a pack of lies.

It falsely claimed:

[T]he following pervasive myth arose [among skeptics]: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent. A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. … During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers. … There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

But as Kenneth Richard explains here, it did so by deliberately and cynically excluded many papers inconvenient to its lying thesis:

As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming “consensus” is preposterous.  Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3° C between the 1940s and ’70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2’s climate influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming “consensus” was 220 papers for the 1965-’79 period, not 7.  If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the “non-consensus” or “cooling” papers reaches 285.

Again, these estimates should be viewed as conservative.  There are likely many dozen more scientific papers from the 1960s-’70s cooling scare era that would probably fall into the category of a “cooling” paper, but have not yet been made available to view in full online.

Perhaps the biggest irony of Connolley’s and Peterson’s trashy, junk-science paper is the bit where it pontificates about lousy scientists abusing data for political ends.

“Underlying the selective quotation of the past literature is an example of what political scientist Daniel Sarewitz calls ‘scientization’ of political debate: the selective emphasis on particular scientific ‘facts’ to advance a particular set of political values.  In this case, the primary use of the myth is in the context of attempting to undermine public belief in and support for the contemporary scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change by appeal to a past “consensus” on a closely related topic that is alleged to have been wrong.”

Scientization is, of course, what climate alarmists do all the time in order to support their bankrupt (but highly lucrative) thesis. Such is their brazen shamelessness, indeed, that you can’t help wondering whether – along with a worthless degree in something like environmental sciences from somewhere like the University of East Anglia – the main requirement for thriving in the world of climate science is the personality of a psychopath.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Breitbart London, Environment, 70s, global cooling, Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, NOAA, Thomas C Peterson, William Connolley

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Bill Whittle's Firewall: Black Lives Matter Kills People



Dissecting and demolishing the big lie of the Black Lives Matter gang.

In this powerful and timely Firewall, Bill Whittle provides shocking evidence that demolishes the central, Big Lie of Black Lives Matter and then goes on to explain why a lie that size needs to be told by people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch.

Transcript below:

BLACK LIVES MATTER is a Democratic Party scam. It’s a combination street army, terrorist organization and voter turnout machine, and has killed and will continue to kill policemen, white people, Hispanics and Asians. Oh, and Black Lives Matter gets black people killed too.

Let’s start by disassembling the lie that BLM is based on: the idea that white people – especially white policemen – are exterminating American young black males. A lie this big has to be broken down into individual lies to show just how shameless the BLM Big Lie really is, and I am deeply grateful to Heather McDonald, an actual journalist, who dug into the government reports to get a handle on what is actually happening in America today.

So what’s the truth?

The truth is that the police fatally shoot far more whites and Hispanics – both in total numbers and as a percentage of total homicides – than they do blacks.

According to a Washington Post report, in 2015 police officers killed 662 whites and Hispanics, and 258 blacks, and in the vast majority of these cases – White, Black and Hispanic -- the victims were attacking or threatening the police officer with a gun. 

Twelve percent of all white and Hispanic homicide victims are killed by police officers, compared to only four percent of all black homicide victims.

In 2014 there were a total of 6,095 black homicide deaths – that’s over twenty times the number of blacks killed by police. Virtually all of those black homicide victims had been killed by other blacks. And as far as the lie of blacks being exterminated by whites, the truth is that blacks commit murder at eleven times the rate of whites alone.

So if black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter, they would protest what is far and away the primary killers of young black males in America, which is other young black males.

But they don’t. So they don’t.

Now it is absolutely true that blacks make up 26% of the police-shooting victims, and yet are only 13% of the national US population. That means blacks are twice as likely as whites to be shot by police. Surely that is evidence of racial targeting on the part of racist officers.

But it’s not; in fact it is just the opposite. Let’s take New York, for example: 23% of New Yorkers are black, but they commit 75% of the shootings. Whites make up 33% of the population of New York City. They commit about 3% of the shootings.

So what does that actually mean? It means that if blacks commit 75% of the shootings, and whites commit 3%, then cops are twenty-five times more likely to be looking for a black shooter than a white one.

In neighboring Brooklyn are two communities: predominately black Brownsville, and predominately white and Asian Bay Ridge. The shooting rate in Brownsville is not 25 times that of Bay Ridge. It is 81 times higher.

So what does this mean for BLM’s Big Lie: that white cops are assassinating black males?

The number of policemen killed in the line of duty has more than doubled in 2016.  Over the last ten years, a police officer is 18 times more likely to be killed by a black assailant than an unarmed black being killed by a cop.

Oh, we have a national epidemic, all right. When it comes to who actually gets killed in confrontations between blacks and police, 18 times as many cops are killed by blacks than unarmed blacks are killed by police.

So why does the President invite the leaders of Black Lives Matters to the White House for support and encouragement? Why does the Attorney General, only a few days after a BLM-inspired murderer assassinated five policemen in Dallas, say to the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement that they “should not be discouraged” by the fact that there were dead policemen in Dallas, and that the Justice Department would continue to work with them in order to build “a brighter future.”


Well first, BLM is handy as Street Muscle; a private army of thugs they can send to disrupt Republican conventions and especially Donald Trump rallies. Leaked emails reveal that the Ford foundation, George Soros and a few other shady characters are raising $130 million dollars for the BLM cause. Even at the going rate for professional protestors, $130 million is far more money than they could spend on street protests. So why are they raising that kind of money? Because Big Players know the value of fear when it comes to getting their way.

You see, Black Lives Matter is really a get-out-the-vote machine that the Democrats cannot win without. They need a huge majority of black voters, and a huge number of them too, in order to win national elections. Blacks came out for Obama. They are not so keen on Hillary, but if the President and the Attorney General tell black America that they are being murdered by white policemen – despite the fact they know the numbers we just went over -- then it’s in the vital interest of Democrats to gin up and keep up a perpetual race war in order to motivate the slaves on their vote plantation.

The BLM movement provides a moral fig leaf for the real message, which is this: keep the Democrats in power, and the entitlement bribes of Obama phones and EBT cards and all the rest are going to keep on coming. Throw the Democrats out – all of America’s black-on-black killing fields have been governed exclusively by Democrats for half a century or more – and the riots we see in Ferguson and Milwaukee and all the rest will be coming soon to a city near you.

By claiming victimhood these professional protesters are calling for reducing the police presence in black communities. And that means more black people – many hardworking, law-abiding and completely innocent black people -- will die at the hands of other black people.

The Democrats not only don’t care about all of this – they actually need to keep these fires burning down black neighborhoods in black cities so that soulless, shameless mediocrities like Barack Obama can go golfing in the Hamptons with his rich white friends, and Hillary Clinton can make $100 million dollars selling political influence for cash.

It’s blackmail. And it’s going to get bigger. And it’s going to keep coming.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

The Matrix Exposed

Tyler Durden's picture

by Tyler Durden

Sep 6, 2016 6:18 PM

Twitter Facebook Reddit

Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via,

I define corporatism as an economic model (such as our existing) that prioritizes short term profit maximization above everything else even consuming all other aspects of society to attain that goal.  Now I try not to simply opine on matters I discuss but attempt to substantiate my claims with objective quantitative analysis.  And yet it amazes me the number of ‘experts’ and otherwise out there that don’t just disagree with me but quite aggressively take exception to my claims.

What is really fascinating to me is that so many stringent supporters of corporatism honestly believe they are proponents of capitalism. And it is for them that I’ve set out to unleash the iniquitous truth with such clarity so as to finally sever their misplaced loyalties to those false authorities who would have them not only believe but defend that the system is, in fact, what ‘They’ say it is.

Now before we go on, I must warn you there is a potential risk lying somewhere between jest and certainty that you will never see the world the same way again.  And so if this is something that will cause you a sense of unending doom then perhaps best to click over to CNBC.  And so….

“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more.”

Recently I provided some charts that show Wall Street profits up some 800% over the past 30 years while over that same period median weekly earnings for the American worker have risen about 9%.  The point of this was not to make a moral judgement about central bankers (I’ll leave that to you), but to highlight the fact that policy objectives are best understood through policy results. Now in today’s world of continuously updated news, facts and figures it becomes almost impossible to gauge real progress.  We rarely ever hear about YoY results anymore let alone 5 year or 10 year results.

Our standard of measure is relative to yesterday or at most last quarter.  This allows the artistic freedom of seasonality adjustments.  You see YoY results don’t require seasonal adjustments and that means the raw figures would have to be exposed.  And well, that is a dangerous proposition for any government office or agency.  But by keeping us focused on a new individual leaf each day they have prevented us from noticing the forest has burned down around us.

So take a step back with me and let’s look at the long term results to see exactly what the policy objectives have and continue to be.  What we are about to see is that for those not already in retirement and especially for those just entering the real economy today the economic future is menacing and most will not survive it.

Now the subject of trade agreements always seems to elicit some very intense opposition to my own views.  My claims have focused around the concept that so called Free Trade Agreements are anything but.  These international trade agreements have two basic objectives.  First is to create a cost arbitrage while negating the high risk proposition of undeveloped economies that naturally exists in a free market.  Second is to protect the cost arbitrage from tariffs when targeting consumers back in developed economies.  That’s really it.  If you could lock those two objectives up on the back of a napkin the corporate interests would be happy for our legislators to sign it.

I’m about to prove that these trade agreements are the very essence of corporatism and together with fiat money have destroyed the natural self sustainment of capitalism through the requirement of private and public debt. In doing so corporatism has sabotaged the vast majority of American households thereby eradicating the capacity for economic growth.  Leaving a tremendously precarious situation for those whose futures are not yet secured by fortune.

Note that labour cost arbitrage is not a real competitive advantage because it only works if government legislates away the naturally occurring free market risk.  That is by definition, not a free market concept.  So please, let’s stop calling these trade agreements ‘Free Trade’.  And now think about a true capitalism cycle – Investment/production requiring profit, profit requiring consumption, consumption requiring income and income requiring investment – with only those parametres could firms profit if all firms implemented a labour cost arbitrage strategy?  Well let’s quickly run through it.

Imagine all CEOs replace their domestic workers with cheap foreign workers in hopes of increasing profit.  A trade agreement is put in place to negate the higher risk of their foreign capital investment and to ensure no tariffs are placed on products when they sell back into the domestic consumer market.  So all firms build products overseas, ship them back to the US and put them on the shelves of Walmart.

So far everything is looking good.  We have the Investment/production stage and now just require the consumption stage to realize profits so we can start the cycle over again.  However, in our capitalism cycle it appears that consumption requires income yet all CEOs replaced domestic income with cheap foreign income in an effort to increase profitability.  And so how do corporations realize profits if there is no income for domestic consumers to consume?

This is the absolute heart of the problem and helps to clarify the difference between capitalism and corporatism.  Corporatism strategies (trade agreements and economic cannibalism) necessitate credit and welfare (private and public debt) whereas capitalism is self sustaining.

Please understand the above is a logical syllogism because corporate profit requires a transaction to take place.  If no transaction then no profit is possible. The transaction is a necessary (but not sufficient) process for corporate profit.  The transaction we call a ‘sale’.  The sale we call ‘consumption’.  So profit necessitates consumption.  Consumption can only come by way of three means, namely, income, credit and welfare.  Therefore by decreasing income in an effort to increase profit (on a macro scale, which is exactly what trade agreements do i.e. push microeconomic strategies on a macroeconomic scale) firms must assume the lost consumption from the lost income will be made up by credit and/or welfare.  And in our current system it is.  And I’m about to prove that to you beyond any shadow of a doubt.

If my claims are correct, then by implementing a labour cost arbitrage on a macro scale (trade agreements) you would end up with current account deficit inflection points following major trade agreement events. The most recent trade agreement events for the US were NAFTA and the Tokyo round of GATT (which increased corporatism benefits by more the 500% over all other rounds combined).  The reason is that domestic consumption would increase materially relative to domestic production (i.e. production shipped offshore while selling that production back in the domestic consumer market).  So let’s have a look at at the data.

Screen Shot 2016-08-31 at 5.48.47 AM

The chart depicts total current account balance (black line) and 5 Yr moving average (red line). What we find is that following both trade agreement events we had significant increases to the imbalance of domestic consumption and production. Notice the balanced current account prior to Fiat money because you can’t run deficits on a gold standard.  Notice a bit of fluctuation in current account after Fiat but prior to Gatt Tokyo.  And then notice the major deficit move post Gatt and the massive deficit post NAFTA.  Essentially Fiat allowed for deficits but the trade agreements unleashed the deficits.

Now the above chart shows that our existing model post trade agreements (necessarily) integrates perpetual imbalances between consumption and production (and remember gdp = gni) so this means that the imbalance must be ‘balanced’ by some input. And my claim is that exogenous input has to be credit and welfare.  You’ll notice I included the point at which we moved from a quasi gold standard to a full on fiat currency.  The reason is that we couldn’t implement labour cost arbitrage agreements without the ability to print endless private and public debt and so that was a necessary part of corporatism.  So Let’s have look at private and public debt.

Screen Shot 2016-08-31 at 10.33.20 AM

The above chart depicts changes in consumer credit + welfare as a percent of changes in personal consumption expenditures. Essentially this is tracking how much of the growth in corporate revenues is coming by way of increases to credit and welfare.  What we find is that while there were ebs and flows over time there was a major shift immediately following NAFTA.  The shift moved the ceiling of 37% of consumer sales growth coming from credit and welfare increases before NAFTA to 37% being the floor after NAFTA.  In fact in 2015 a staggering 76% of consumer sales (PCE) growth came from growth in credit and welfare.

By now I must have your spidey senses tingly but I’m about to blow your mind with this next chart. I’m going to prove to you with absoluteness that these trade agreements that create perpetual trade deficits have a direct requirement for consumer credit.

Screen Shot 2016-08-31 at 10.11.35 AM

The above chart simply adds total real consumer credit per capita / total real salaries and wages per capita (blue line) to the first trade deficit chart above.  It is useful to think in terms of per capita because ultimately the macro is just the aggregate of individual circumstances and choices. The above chart has a correlation of -.9 and highly statistically significant regression results.  While correlation is not causation we have our theoretical basis that predicted this very relationship and the tightness of that relationship is truly striking.

It tells the story that these trade agreements force the economy to subsidize income (i.e. consumption) per consumer with credit.  That is, the trade deficits are a result of the trade agreements as depicted in the deficit charts above.  And the deficits are then directly subsidized by consumer credit, which must make up the relative shortfall in income.  Note the blue line is an almost perfect mirror image of the black line in the chart above, validating the hypothesis that the subsidizing credit is a direct requirement of the ‘free’ trade agreements.

Yeah, I know… colours are getting a bit brighter and things are starting to look much sharper than before.  Truth can be so cleansing.

Now each of these above charts are highly supportive that the logical syllogism I discussed above is in fact absolute.  It’s logical and mathematical; two things that most have very little success debating.  And remember, I’m not suggesting that international trade is necessarily bad.  I’m saying we irresponsibly develop trade agreements with corporate objectives that can only be supported by private and public debt.  The antithesis of capitalism.

Corporatism embodies the worst aspects of both capitalism and socialism to form a uniquely destructive economic framework.  So let’s look at the destructive nature of corporatism.  What we’ll find is that it isn’t only destructive to the average American but to the profiters themselves.

As I’ve discussed previously credit and welfare are a function of income and if income is stagnant then as credit and welfare increase we are moving toward their limit.  And this means we are heading to a maximum level of consumption (which can only be achieved by way of income, credit and welfare).  But not only does credit have a limit relative to income but as it increases for the sake of consumption it actually reduces the flow of consumption over the medium and long term because of interest.

Now without getting too philosophical, when one researches the concept and history of interest (usury, ribbit, riba) one finds that most ancient religions (which were the basis of law) going back to the ancient Vedic Texts prohibited interest either absolutely or in some form (this includes Christianity, Judaism and Islam).  And this to me is fascinating because it suggests that these ancient civilizations were wise enough to understand the potential destructive nature of interest bearing debt.  Some writings actually specifically ban the concept of consumer debt.

What this means is that at some point in even more ancient history some society or societies must have collapsed under the weight of indebtedness because ancient laws were based on generational experience.  Putting this in context with the plight of most great societies in more modern history we see the old lessons were lost on us.  The irresponsible expansion of money and debt being the fatal common denominator of so many great societies in recent history.

So let’s look at the destruction of our modern society by way of corporatism, which is synonymous to the expansion of interest bearing private and public debt.

Screen Shot 2016-09-01 at 4.47.55 PM

The above chart is pretty self explanatory.  What it suggests is that we are only about 5 – 10 years from moving beyond the now 45 year period of deceleration and into actual contraction.  Growth in incomes, credit and population are all below 1% on a 10 year average.  Consumption and welfare growth are around 4% on the 10 year average.  What’s concerning is that this trend, while softening during the 1990’s has again intensified post 2008.  One thing to note is that income, credit and consumption growth rates all peaked immediately following Gatt Tokyo. What I’m telling you is that this is not a coincidence but a consequence.

And so I guess the point here is that you no longer have to take my word for it or for that matter the word of Moses, Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Aquinas, Muhammad, Jesus, Philo or even Gautama Buddha, all of whom condemned the concept of usury.  An economic model that is built around interest bearing private and public debt is a form evil in that it necessarily ends in the destruction of society.  Do comprehend that evil presents itself not as repulsive but nefariously seductive and credit is nothing if not seductive.

This is no longer about theory or opinion.  The facts define how this will end.  If you continue to deny these absolutes then you are technically irrational i.e insane.  And so I see this as an end to the debate.

The policy objectives have not been what you were told.  None of the economic policies were intended for your benefit.  Monetary policy is not about you or your well being.  Fiscal policies have not had your interest in mind.  This is not to conclude  that those who control your world maliciously intended you direct harm.  But in the very best case you were and are simply irrelevant in this economic model of Corporatism.