Green Swan

Financial Crisis: BIS Warns On ‘Green Swan’ Climate Event

Mimicking the concept of a Black Swan event, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is warning that a ‘Green Swan’ climate event could trigger a financial crisis.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb popularized the concept of a Black Swan event in his 2007 book, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Taleb laid out three requirements: the event must be unknown and unpredictable, it must cause a massive impact and people then try to rationalize that it really was predictable after all.

Now that the BIS has guzzled the green global warming Kool-Aid, it suggests that a ‘Green Swan’ event is unpredictable as to when it will occur, but is absolutely certain that it will occur.

Bloomberg reports,

Many central banks already contribute to the effort by monitoring climate-related risks through stress tests, incorporating environmental, social and governance criteria in pension funds, or working with banks on disclosing carbon-intensive exposure to assess potential financial-stability risks. [Bank of France Governor] Villeroy says that’s simply not enough however.

The stark reality is that we are all losing the fight against climate change,” Villeroy said, advocating two solutions the European Central Bank could discuss in its upcoming strategy review: integrating climate change in all economic and forecasting models, and overhauling the collateral framework to reflect climate-related risks.

“If central banks are to preserve financial and price stability in the age of climate change, it is in their interest to help mobilize all the forces needed to win this battle,” he said. [emphasis added]

Governor Villeroy apparently reflects consensus among central bankers: we are already losing the battle against climate change, so we had better double- or triple-down our efforts to assure victory.

However, if there is a battle, it exists only in his own fantastical mind. That goes for the rest of the BIS elite and all other central bankers as well. In the real world, there is no real battle because there is no real enemy. Conceptions of climate change originated from mostly-faulty computer models and none of their predictions have actually materialized.

If people like Villeroy were not in charge of the world’s entire financial structure and system, nobody would care what they think. But they are in charge, and thanks to their own private delusions, they intend to completely flip the global financial system upside-down.

Of course, the Green Agenda is all about Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. The United Nations has convinced world political leaders that their nations will perish unless they go along with it. The global elitists behind the United Nations (e.g., members of the Trilateral Commission) have convinced the entire global banking community to go along as well.




YouTube Censored Soros

Soros-Linked Group Seeks To Purge Climate Skeptics On YouTube

Proponents of Technocracy like George Soros hate critics who confront them with facts that disprove their propaganda. This is not a new revelation, but the censorship battle is growing and getting uglier by the day. ⁃ TN Editor

The censorship continues, as a George Soros-linked group has joined forces with the mainstream media to ensure climate skeptics are silenced on YouTube.  The group Avaaz, left-leaning non-profit group, published a report on January 16th on its website that claims YouTube is “profiting by broadcasting misinformation” to millions of people by giving climate denial videos too much prominence.

Independent mainstream media outlets are engaging in a politically-motivated campaign to force YouTube to demonetize and hide any video that denies climate change.  Regardless of the facts or scientific evidence revealed in the videos, if one doesn’t submit to the religion of climate change, they will be silenced if Avaaz has anything to do about it.

The report is an undisguised intimidation campaign, as not only does it list major advertizers who are running ads on videos that question the legitimacy of the threat climate change poses for humanity, but it explicitly calls for them to put pressure on the platform as a means of putting an end to the so-called disinformation.

Despite the findings being published just yesterday, many mainstream sites had lengthy articles posted not long after that, which featured quotes from those who worked on the report. Timings that suggest select websites were given early access, making it clear what agenda is being pushed, more so as they all tout the same talking points. Vice, Time, Gizmodo, The Verge, and countless other news entities want YouTube to punish creators who don’t toe the “correct” ideological line. The objective is to demonetize, and thus censor, such individuals as they’ll be less inclined to work on the content that they won’t be able to profit from. -RT

Nell Greenburg, a campaign director at Avaaz, claims the report isn’t about removing content and censorship, however, that contradicts the report’s own messaging. There is a clear attempt to have content hidden as the report calls into question the promotion of such videos in the “up next” box on the site. It’s semantics at this point, but hiding videos would hurt creators and dissuade them from even trying to share their thoughts. It is an indirect way of removing “wrongthink.”  The official narrative is the only narrative and when it comes to the domination of others, these people want to be at the top.

Basic human rights are under attack from all sorts of groups. And it is fairly safe to say that YouTube will give into the demands of this group, silencing and demonetizing anyone caught not parroting the Orwellian narrative the ruling class hands down.

Read full story here…




Central Banks Declare Climate Change As Core Mission

The entire central banking system is embracing global warming, Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, and the destruction of Capitalism and Free Enterprise. They will eventually lead the flip into a global scientific dictatorship. ⁃ TN Editor

The Fed, ECB, Bank of England, and Bank of Japan have now embraced climate change as part of their mission.

They now want their hands in another thing they do not understand and cannot control even if they did.

Fed’s Core Mission Change

Lael Brainard, Chair of the Fed’s Committee on Financial Stability, says Climate Change Matters for Monetary Policy and Financial Stability.

So how does climate change fit into the work of the Federal Reserve? To support a strong economy and a stable financial system, the Federal Reserve needs to analyze and adapt to important changes to the economy and financial system. This is no less true for climate change than it was for globalization or the information technology revolution.

To fulfill our core responsibilities, it will be important for the Federal Reserve to study the implications of climate change for the economy and the financial system and to adapt our work accordingly.

Climate Change Essential to Achieving Mission

Brainard was just one of the speakers at the Fed’s Economics of Climate Change summit last November.

Mary Daly, San Francisco Fed president has this Q&A in her presentation.

Q: Why is the San Francisco Fed hosting a climate conference? Why this? Why now?

A: The answer is simple. It’s essential to achieving our mission.

Bank of Japan Warns of Climate Change Risks

Japan Times reports Bank of Japan Gov. Haruhiko Kuroda Warns of Climate Change Risks.

The challenges posed by a string of recent natural disasters and the potential hit to the economy from slowing overseas growth “should be better addressed by government with fiscal policy and structural policies,” Kuroda said at a seminar.

As Japan is prone to big typhoons and earthquakes, Kuroda highlighted the risks related to climate change as an example of new issues central banks must deal with in maintaining financial stability.

“Climate-related risk differs from other risks in that its relatively long-term impact means the effects will last longer than other financial risks, and the impact is far less predictable,” he said. “It is therefore necessary to thoroughly investigate and analyze the impact of climate-related risk.”

Bank of England Climate Change Warning

The Bank of England hopped on the climate change bandwagon on December 30, with a Climate Change Warning from BoE Chief Mark Carney.

The world will face irreversible heating unless firms shift their priorities soon, the outgoing head of the Bank of England has told the BBC.

He said leading pension fund analysis “is that if you add up the policies of all of companies out there, they are consistent with warming of 3.7-3.8C”.

Scientists say the risks associated with an increase of 4C include a nine metre rise in sea levels – affecting up to 760 million people – searing heatwaves and droughts, and serious food supply problems.

“Now $120tn worth of balance sheets of banks and asset managers are wanting this disclosure [of investments in fossil fuels]. But it’s not moving fast enough.”

ECB in on the Climate Change Act

The Financial Times reports Christine Lagarde Wants Key Role for Climate Change in ECB Review.

Consider this Open Letter to ECB head Christine Lagarde from the European Parliament.

During your hearing at the European Parliament, you rightly pledged to make sure the ECB puts the “protection of the environment at the core of the understanding of its mission.” As academics, civil society and trade union leaders, entrepreneurs and citizens deeply concerned by climate change, we believe that the most powerful financial institution in Europe cannot just sit passively as we witness a growing environmental crisis.

Climate change not only imperils life-sustaining processes, it also threatens the financial stability, real economy and jobs. It has been estimated that without mitigation efforts, physical risks related to climate change could result in losses of up to $24 trillion of the value of global financial assets.

Wow. $24 Trillion at risk.

Nonetheless, Germany’s Bundesbank president Jens Weidmann, who also sits on the on the ECB’s governing council, understands the silliness of the move.

Weidmann says that he would view “very critically” any attempt to redirect a central bank’s actions towards climate change, such as favouring the purchase of green bonds as part of a quantitative easing programme.

Read full story here…




Davos WEFf

Davos Forum: Stuck On Stupid Over “Climate Action Failure”

This year’s World Economic Forum Davos convention of global elitists drew 2,782 registered participants representing 117 countries and 121 nationalities. In a micro-sense, it resembles a United Nations meeting but only for plutocrats: rich, famous and powerful.

For all of the economic problems facing the world, the Davos leadership saw fit to have 17 year-old Greta Thunberg come and give them a tongue lashing for not living up to her expectations of climate change hysteria.

She duly scolded them on every front, but mostly for listening to her while subsequently doing nothing about her demands.

Why would the WEF allow an autistically-challenged teenager with no experience in business, economics or climate science to address them in the first place? The answer to this is not at all clear, but on the surface of it, it seems that this young know-nothing girl has been elevated to some kind of sainthood where she can go anywhere and say anything and people hang on every word that proceeds out of her mouth.

But Saint Greta has been assigned a dark side to punish deniers, outliers and stubborn plutocrats. When you are guilty and you know it, a few scourings by Saint Greta will buy you enough indulgences to keep on flying in your private jets and investing in fossil fuels. Some egregious cheaters may need a few more stripes than others.

The WEF produces an annual risk assessment that serves as a guide for discussion at the Davos meetings. The 2019 conclusion was “Over a ten-year horizon, extreme weather and climate-change policy failures are seen as the gravest threats.

Of course, the 2019 report addressed a number of other potential shocks, like “quantum computing, weather manipulation, monetary populism [and] emotionally responsive artificial intelligence”. It even had a chapter that “calls for greater action around rising levels of psychological strain across the world.”

If they truly believe that psychological strain is a global problem, they should start with a little self-analysis and stop straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

Every nation needs leaders who can bring real solutions to real problems to real people. The World Economic Forum fails on all counts. Global Warming is not the problem and Sustainable Development is not the solution, but they continue to double-down on them every time they meet.

You could certainly describe this mass delusion in various ways, but “stuck on stupid” is as good as any.




solar activity

Global Cooling: The Lowest Solar Activity In Over 200 Years

Any legitimate climate scientist knows that sunspot activity is the primary determinant affecting weather on earth. With sunspot activity dropping to a 200 year low in 2020, a mini ice-age is looming, and it will crush global warming hysteria. ⁃ TN Editor

As we move further into 2020, solar activity dwindles.  This year, solar activity will be marked as the lowest in over 200 years. The low in the sun’s 11-year cycle will also have at least some repercussions for the climate here on Earth.

On December 20, 2019, Iceland received one of the largest snow storms in its history. The so-called “10-year storm,” brought winds of 100 miles per hour (161 km/h), with one weather station reporting gusts of up to 149 mph (240 km/h), according to a report by Interesting Engineering. 

Iceland’s, Europe’s and North America’s weather have historically been tied to the sunspot activity of the Sun. According to NASA, in 2020, the Sun, which is currently in solar cycle number 25, will reach its lowest activity in over 200 years. That means “space weather” will be favorable for exploration beyond Eart, yet it could also very well mean we should prepare for odd or different weather patterns.

The solar cycle is a periodic 11-year fluctuation in the Sun’s magnetic field, during which its North and South poles trade places. This has an enormous effect on the number and size of sunspots, the level of solar radiation, and the ejection of solar material comprised of flares and coronal loops.Interesting Engineering. 

When solar activity gets really low, it can have the effect of a “mini ice age.” The period between 1645 and 1715 was marked by a prolonged sunspot minimum, and this corresponded to a downturn in temperatures in Europe and North America. Named after astronomers Edward Maunder and his wife Annie Russell Maunder, this period became known as the Maunder Minimum. It is also known as “The Little Ice Age.”

Predictions for solar cycle #25 made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC), NASA and the International Solar Energy Society (ISES) anticipate a deep minimum and a maximum that will occur between the years 2023 and 2026. During that maximum, they predict the Sun will have between 95 and 130 sunspots.

Read full story here…




Technocracy

Spiked On Climate: The UK Solution Cannot Be Technocracy

The UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is run by Technocrats bent on social engineering while using faulty science to gain leverage over society. In that humans are carbon-based life forms, it is logically impossible to be zero-carbon without wiping out humanity. ⁃ TN Editor

Ask people what the UK’s biggest housing problems are, and most will tell you, rightly, that there aren’t enough homes, and that prices and rents are far too high. But UK policymakers are preoccupied by something else and have been for a long time: that our homes contribute to, and are at risk from, global warming.

So it was that a non-departmental public body, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), announced last week that ‘UK homes are not fit for the future’, and that tough new building standards and enforcement will be necessary. Most shocking of all, the CCC said ‘no new homes should be connected to the gas grid’, and that gas central heating and plumbing should therefore be phased out.

Saving the planet, and homes, from the ravages of climate change is a good idea. But the CCC’s claims are questionable. As I reported here during last Summer’s heatwave, the CCC, like many climate alarmists, has a tendency to exaggerate risk and lose historical perspective. In truth, homes are actually better protected from the slightly warmer, slightly wetter and slightly windier weather that scientists predict might be our future than they were even a generation ago.

The CCC argues that UK emissions-reduction targets cannot be met ‘without near complete decarbonisation of the housing stock’. Gas boilers should therefore be banned in new (and then older) homes, because ‘energy use in homes accounts for about 14 per cent of UK greenhouse gas emissions’. In their place will be more energy-efficient systems, such as ground- and air-source heat pumps, and greater levels of insulation.

The problem with this is that if economic alternatives to gas-fired central heating and hot water existed, there would be no need for standards and their enforcement. But they don’t exist. Zero-carbon homes are the stuff of Grand Designs – a nice idea, but more a fashion accessory for the wealthy than a design principle that will improve lives. Lower-cost experiments with low-carbon construction have resulted in complaints of homes becoming too hot in the summer; having poor ventilation and, therefore, damp and mould; and of requiring their inhabitants to sacrifice comfort. Most notably, and most tragically, the incautious application of energy-efficiency standards as dictated by remote technocrats – rather than consumers, according to their own needs – contributed to the Grenfell disaster.

All of which should provoke debate about the UK’s climate-change policy. UK political parties all make the same bland promises to ‘tackle climate change’, but the devil is in the platitudes. That is to say, they rarely explain costs or consequences. It seems clear that climate-change and energy policies have not been constructed in the voter’s interest, and certainly without his or her consent. And the climate establishment’s contempt runs deep. Ten years ago, I interviewed CCC member Julia King (aka Baroness Brown of Cambridge), after a public talk on UK climate policy. She told me that the problem for politicians is that the population is ‘extremely selfish’, and the main objective of the CCC was ‘behaviour change’. There has been no public debate about the principles underpinning the shift to a lower carbon economy – including banning gas boilers – because members of the climate-change establishment do not believe they are answerable to the public.

The CCC was established by the Climate Change Act (2008) to give ‘independent advice’ to parliament on what its climate targets should be and how they can be achieved. But this act was passed at one of the lowest points in UK democracy, in which a cross-party consensus on climate change, and the endless spawning of quangos, epitomised the lack of political diversity and accountability in Westminster. Accordingly, far from being ‘independent’, the CCC was populated by crony capitalists and green zealots. The result has been a single-minded body that has ignored criticism and dodged debate because, like all unaccountable, undemocratic technocracies, it can.

For people with the means to afford ever-increasing energy bills and higher-cost transport, the CCC’s latest wheeze may seem trivial. But a proposed ban on gas boilers is merely one part of a broader technocratic project that further disempowers the public. So, regardless of whether you think climate change is the huge problem the CCC claims it is, the solution to it cannot be technocracy.

Read full story here…




climate

Professor: UN Might Use Military To Enforce Climate Agenda

Speaking of the 2011 Greece crisis, this professor says, “There were decisions that were made for them and then they just had to have a more or less technocratic government and get it through.” Now, the United Nations is in the same predicament with nations not adopting its bogus climate change agenda. This gives expression to Al Gore’s statement ‘deniers deserve to be punished. ⁃ TN Editor

Action to address climate change has been left so late that any political response will likely become an international security issue — and could threaten democracy.

That’s the view of Ole Wæver, a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen, who also says climate inaction could lead to armed conflict.

“At some point this whole climate debate is going to tip over,” he tells RN’s Late Night Live.

“The current way we talk about climate is one side and the other side. One side is those who want to do something, and the other is the deniers who say we shouldn’t do anything.”

He believes that quite soon, another battle will replace it. Then, politicians that do ‘something’ will be challenged by critics demanding that policies actually add up to realistic solutions.

When decision-makers — after delaying for so long — suddenly try to find a shortcut to realistic action, climate change is likely to “be securitised”.

Professor Wæver, who first coined the term “securitisation”, says more abrupt change could potentially threaten democracy.

“The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he says.

“And then it’s within their competencies to decide ‘and you are doing this, you are doing this, you are doing this, this is how we deal with it’.”

A risk of armed conflict?

Professor Wæver says despite “overwhelmingly good arguments” as to why action should be taken on climate change, not enough has been done.

And he says that could eventually lead to a greater risk of armed conflict, particularly in unstable political climates.

“Imagine these kinds of fires that we are seeing happening [in Australia] in a part of Africa or South-East Asia where you have groups that are already in a tense relationship, with different ethnic groups, different religious orientations,” he says.

“And then you get events like this and suddenly they are not out of each other’s way, they’ll be crossing paths, and then you get military conflicts by the push.”

He isn’t the first expert to warn of the security risks of climate change.

Chris Barrie, former Defence Force chief and honorary professor at the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, wrote in October that “climate change is a threat multiplier”.

“It exacerbates the drivers of conflict by deepening existing fragilities within societies, straining weak institutions, reshaping power balances and undermining post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding,” he wrote.

And current Defence chief Angus Campbell has warned that increased incidences of climate change-related natural disasters could stretch the capability of the ADF.

Letting ‘the dark forces’ loose

Professor Wæver argues that delayed action will lead to more drastic measures.

“The longer we wait, the more abrupt the change has to be,” he says.

“So a transformation of our economy and our energy systems that might have been less painful if we had started 20 years ago, 30 years ago.

“If we have to do that in a very short time, it becomes extremely painful.”

He says classifying climate change as a security issue could justify more extreme policy responses.

“That’s what happens when something becomes a security issue, it gets the urgency, the intensity, the priority, which is helpful sometimes, but it also lets the dark forces loose in the sense that it can justify problematic means,” he says.

This urgency, he says, could lead to more abrupt action at an international level.

“If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,” he says.

“A bit like what we saw in southern Europe with countries like Greece and the debt crisis and so on.

“There were decisions that were made for them and then they just had to have a more or less technocratic government and get it through.”

Read full story here…




Ottmar Edenhofer

Global Warming Swindle: A Scheme To Redistribute Wealth

This is a non-US view and analysis of global warming as being a swindle to redistribute wealth on a global scale. Globalization and global warming are intricately linked, driving the world into the new economic system of Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

As the “science” behind man-made global warming has been increasingly discredited, the story has changed. Now it’s not about saving the environment but about redistributing wealth, says a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 (its latest), recently said, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

Edenhofer told a German news outlet (NZZ AM Sonntag): “Basically, it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”

“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community,” said Edenhofer. Thus the developers of coal and oil should pay reparations in the form of global carbon emission rights and taxes. Investors Business Daily commented “U.N. Warm-mongers are seeking to impose a global climate reparations tax on everything from airline flights and international shipping, to fuel and financial transactions.”

The Cancun agreement set up a “Green Climate Fund” to administer assistance to poor nations suffering from floods and drought due to global warming. The European Union, Japan and the United States have led pledges of $100 billion per year for poor nations up to 2020, plus $30 billion in immediate assistance.

The agreement says it “recognizes that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to science” and calls for “urgent action” to cap temperature rises. But this chart gives lie to such claims. You can clearly see that on a multimillion-year scale global temperatures have been confined to a steady band unrelated to even huge changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Does this graph reveal any need for “urgent action” “according to science?” Yet at the Cancun conference, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned, “Nature will not wait….Science warns that the window of opportunity to prevent uncontrolled climate change will soon close.”

The window of opportunity that is going to close is not a scientific one but a political one—because more and more people are realizing that global warming alarmism is based on phony science and outright lies.

Dr. Fred Singer

Dr. Fred Singer

Foremost in the struggle to bring essential scientific truths to light on this issue is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) founded and directed by the distinguished atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer. With assistance from climate experts in 16 countries—who donated their time and efforts—the NIPCC produced a massive, extensively-illustrated 880-page report “out of concern that the IPCC was provoking irrational fear of anthropogenic global warming,” in the words of Dr. Singer. The report references 4,000 (!) research papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals that contradict IPCC conclusions but were not used by the IPCC though it claims to be the definitive source of climate research. The entire report can be downloaded free from the Heartland Institute website.

I shall discuss only one item from the NIPCC report, but it is fundamental to the whole carbon dioxide/greenhouse hypothesis of global warming. Worldwide, there are 20-some GCMs (General Circulation Models) for computer modeling of global climate change. They all agree—for sound theoretical reasons—that greenhouse gases cannot warm the earth directly. They must first warm the atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface of the earth. So the atmosphere must be warmer than the earth’s surface. The NIPCC Summary Report explains: “Climate models all predict that, if GH gases are driving climate change, there will be a unique fingerprint in the form of a warming trend increasing with altitude in the tropical troposphere, the region of the atmosphere up to about 15 kilometers. Climate changes due to solar variability or other known natural factors will not yield this characteristic pattern; only sustained greenhouse warming will do so.” The models show this “hot spot” perfectly—but it is missing in actual observations, which show instead this area to be cooler than the earth’s surface. The Summary Report states—in boldface type: “This mismatch of observed and calculated fingerprints clearly falsifies the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

The Summary Report also notes, “The IPCC has been disingenuous about solar influences on the climate….The demonstration of solar influence on climate is now overwhelming….There now is little doubt that solar-wind variability is a primary cause of climate change on a decadal time scale.”

The disclosure of thousands of emails from climate scientists in November 2009 became known as the “climategate” scandal. It raised concerns about the validity of global warming predictions and the integrity and professional misconduct of some of the world’s leading climate scientists. But even before “climategate,” some important scientists tried to alert the public to the unscientific nature of IPCC procedures and conclusions. These scientists were generally derided as “deniers” by the news media and opinion makers.

The IPCC regularly submits its reports to its Expert Reviewers Panel. As you might expect, most of its appointments to this panel have been supporters of global warming. A few nonbelievers have been included to give the appearance of balance, but their comments and questions have been routinely ignored as the IPCC focuses on what it claims to be the “consensus” view.

Only one person has been been on every IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel. That man is Dr. Vincent Gray. He submitted a very large number of comments to IPCC drafts, including 1,898 for the Final Draft of the 2007 Report. Here are some of his comments from a letter he wrote on March 9, 2008:

Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range….Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be its abolition.

The flagship set of data promoted by the IPCC are the figures showing the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. They have manipulated the data in such a way to persuade us (including most scientists) that this concentration is constant throughout the atmosphere.

The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to  “fudge” an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.

By drawing attention to these obvious facts I have now found myself persona non grata with most of my local professional associations, Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local science establishment. When you get down to it, that is what is involved….

Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle. The IPCC from the beginning was given the license to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide “evidence” that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples’ opinions instead of science to “prove” their case.

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable….Sooner or later all of us will come to realize that this organization, and the thinking behind it, is phony.  Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.

Read full story here…




Lagarde: European Central Bank Demands ‘Key Role’ In Climate Change

Christine Lagarde, having switched from the IMF to heading the ECB, has shocked analysts by demanding a ‘key role’ in climate change matters. This is a tectonic shift in the mission of central banks.

Note also that the Minneapolis Fed chair states that its time for central banks to decide how to redistribute wealth.

The two go hand in hand, but confirm that the central banking system is fully complicit, if not causative, in the master plan to implement Sustainable Development, aka, Technocracy.

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 stated, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” ⁃ TN Editor

Having failed miserably to “trickle down” stock market wealth for a decade as was their intention, something Ben Bernanke made clear in his Nov 4, 2010 WaPo op-ed, central banks have moved on to more noble causes.

Over the weekend Minneapolis Fed chair Neil Kashkari suggested it was time to allow central banks to directly decide how to redistribute wealth, stating unironically that “monetary policy can play the kind of redistributing role once thought to be the preserve of elected officials”, apparently failing to realize that the Fed is not made up of elected officials but unelected technocrats who serve the bidding of the Fed’s commercial bank owners.

Failing to decide how is poor and who is rich, central bankers are happy to settle with merely fixing the climate.

Overnight, Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda joined his European central banking peers by endorsing government plans to compile a fiscal spending package for disaster relief and measures to help the economy stave off heightening global risks. Kuroda said that natural disasters, such as the strong typhoon that struck Japan in October, may erode asset and collateral value, and the associated risk may pose a significant challenge for financial institutions, Kuroda said.

In short, it’s time for central banks to target global warming climate change:

“Climate-related risk differs from other risks in that its relatively long-term impact means that the effects will last longer than other financial risks, and the impact is far less predictable,” he said. “It is therefore necessary to thoroughly investigate and analyse the impact of climate-related risk.”

Kuroda’s crusade to tame climate came just hours after the ECB’s new chief, Christine Lagarde pushed for climate change to be part of a strategic review of the European Central Bank’s purpose, “spearheading a global drive to make the environment an essential part of monetary policymaking.”

As the FT put it, the plan “underlines Ms Lagarde’s declared goal as president to make climate change a “mission-critical” priority for the central bank. It comes as European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, whose team on Wednesday was officially endorsed by the European Parliament, is about to unveil her first landmark climate policy package.

“We have reached the point where the reputational risk of doing nothing is large enough that they will have to announce something at the end of the review — the big question is what,” said Stanislas Jourdan, head of Positive Money Europe, a campaign group.

Funny Jourdan should bring up reputational risk: after all he was referring to the criminally convicted former IMF head, who recently incinerated tens of billions in IMF bailout funds in Argentina. The same former IMF head who in April 2016 admitted that for the IMF to “thrive”, the world has to “go downhill”, and that the IMF “to be sustainable” it needs to be “very in touch with our client base” while adding that “when the world goes well and we’ve had years of growth, as was the case back in 2006 and 2007, the IMF doesn’t do so well both financially and otherwise.”

Naturally, Lagarde’s attempt to hijack the ECB’s mission from one of failing to hit an inflation target for years, diverting from Mario Draghi’s disastrous bubble legacy, and from making the wealth divide between the rich and poor the widest it has ever been, and to one of virtually unlimited debt monetization and MMT under the virtue-signalling guise of monetizing fiscal deficits to “save the climate” was promptly frowned upon by real central bankers such as Bundesbank president Jens Weidmann, who said last month that he would view “very critically” any attempt to redirect ECB monetary policy actions to tackle climate change. Then again, as has long been the case, the general public is by now well aware of Weidmann’s “bad cop” act – when push comes to shove, the German always folds, he will fold again.

It wasn’t just Weidmann who was appalled by Lagarde’s mission creep. Overnight, Rabobank’s Michael Every wrote that “just 24-hours after the Daily made the joke that said central banks will be adding a CO2 target to their CPI target, we see the Financial Times report that ECB President Lagarde wants a key role for climate change in the upcoming ECB review; this is apparently being opposed by the Germans, who believe that central banks are only supposed to focus on not-getting CPI right.”

Read full story here…




climate emergency

EU Parliament Declares Climate Emergency

The entire world, including  the EU,  is caving in to the climate emergency scam, in preparation for an economic reset that will make way for full-blown Technocracy to replace Capitalism and Free Enterprise. ⁃ TN Editor

EU should commit to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 at the UN Conference, says Parliament.

Ahead of the UN COP25 Climate Change Conference in Madrid 2-13 December, the Parliament on Thursday approved a resolution declaring a climate and environmental emergency in Europe and globally. They also want the Commission to ensure that all relevant legislative and budgetary proposals are fully aligned with the objective of limiting global warming to under 1.5 °C.

In a separate resolution, Parliament urges the EU to submit its strategy to reach climate neutrality as soon as possible, and by 2050 at the latest, to the UN Convention on Climate Change. MEPs also call on the new European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to include a 55% reduction target of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 in the European Green Deal.

Step up global emission reductions for aviation and shipping

MEPs say that current aviation and shipping ambitions fall short of the necessary emissions reductions. All countries should include emissions from international shipping and aviation in their national contributions plans (NDCs), they say, and urge the Commission to

propose that the maritime sector be included in the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS).

More financial support to fight climate change

EU countries should at least double their contributions to the international Green Climate Fund, Parliament says. EU member states are the largest providers of public climate finance and the EU’s budget should fully comply with its international commitments. They also note that pledges by developed countries do not meet the collective goal of 100 billion USD per year as of 2020.

Finally, they urgently call on all EU countries to phase out all direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies by 2020.

“The European Parliament has just adopted an ambitious position in view of the upcoming COP 25 in Madrid. Given the climate and environmental emergency, it is essential to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 55% in 2030. It also sends a clear and timely message to the Commission a few weeks before the publication of the Communication on the Green Deal “”, said Pascal Canfin (RE, FR), Chair of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, during the debate on Monday.

Background

The resolution on declaring a climate and environmental emergency was adopted with 429 votes for, 225 votes against and 19 abstentions. The European Parliament adopted the resolution on COP25 with 430 votes for, 190 votes against and 34 abstentions.

A number of countries, local administrations and scientists have declared that our planet is facing a climate emergency.

The European Commission has already proposed the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, but the European Council has still not endorsed it as Poland, Hungary and Czechia are opposed.

Parliament at the COP25

COP25 will take place in Madrid 2-13 December 2019. The President of the European Parliament David Maria Sassoli, (S&D, IT) will attend the official opening. A delegation from the European Parliament, led by Bas Eickhout (Greens, NL), will be there 9-14 December.

Read full story here…