Tag Archive: climate science

Progressive Insanity and the Global Warming Cult

February 21, 2014 by 140216191222-kerry-jakarta-story-topProgressives will do virtually anything to advance their agenda. In the arena of global warming, they have resorted to hysteria and angry denunciation of those who dare to question their infallible “wisdom.” And as it is with every aspect of their agenda, such wisdom must be imposed at the expense of liberty.

Leading the charge is Secretary of State John Kerry, who epitomized the above approach in a speech to Indonesian students, civic leaders and government officials in Jakarta, Indonesia. First he laced into one the left’s favorite punching bags, namely the coal and oil industries he accused of “hijacking” the conversation. ”We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts,” he declared. ”Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits. The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”

Possibly suspecting that his presentation might be insufficient to galvanize the unwashed masses, Kerry added a dash of fear to the mix. ”This city, this country, this region, is really on the front lines of climate change,” Kerry warned. “It’s not an exaggeration to say that your entire way of life here is at risk. In a sense, climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even, the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” he added.

Kerry is taking his cues from President Obama, who went to California, where he promptly explained that state’s worst drought in a century is linked to global climate change and greenhouse gases. “We have to be clear. A changing climate means that weather-related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms [and] floods are potentially going to be costlier and they’re going to be harsher,” he explained.

That was apparently too much even for the New York Times, who contended that the president and his aides “were pushing at the boundaries of scientific knowledge about the relationship between climate change and drought.” Even worse, the so-called paper of record was forced to admit that the much-vaunted computer models the “consensus” scientists having been using to promote their global warming agenda “suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.” That included an assessment by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which noted that the drought “resulted mostly from natural variations in weather.”

White House science adviser John P. Holdren, who co-authored a book describing government forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water as legitimate population control measures, rode to the president’s rescue. While agreeing that no single episode of extreme weather can be linked to climate change, “the global climate has now been so extensively impacted by the human-caused buildup of greenhouse gases that weather practically everywhere is being influenced by climate change.”

The Los Angeles Times brought another angle to the mix, one that plumbs the depths of climate change hysteria. It cites a study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a Massachusetts research and consulting firm, that contends climate change “can be expected to cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft,” between 2010 and 2099.

In a Wall Street Journal article, authors Richard McNider and John Christy underscored the irony of Kerry comparing global warming skeptics to flat-earthers of ancient times. It was the flat-earthers who maintained something similar to the 97 percent “consensus” Kerry used to justify his rant. It was a tiny minority of scientists who posited that the earth was round. With regard to the actual science leftists accuse skeptics of ignoring, the McNider and Christy acknowledge that “carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.” Yet what remains unknown is the level of warming that will occur.

They then address the aforementioned computer models, rightly noting that those created to explain the phenomenon were built “almost entirely” by scientists heavily invested in the idea of “catastrophic” global warming. Unsurprisingly, those investments have tainted the science behind them, which explains why many of the dire predictions they engendered have turned out to be “spectacularly wrong.”

That wrongness is invariably followed by a litany of excuses. One was the idea that an increased use of aerosols by human beings that ostensibly “skewed” the results. Moreover, the “consensus” scientists continue to ignore data that does not accrue to their political convictions.

Far more devastating, climate change promoters virtually ignore the disastrous economic effects their policies would engender. As Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a nonprofit group focused on cost-effective solutions to global problems explains, 81 percent of the world’s energy needs are provided by fossil fuels, with billions of people depending on them for survival. “For many parts of the world, fossil fuels are still vital and will be for the next few decades, because they are the only means to lift people out of the smoke and darkness of energy poverty,” he writes.

That necessity explains much of the developing world’s resistance to the Obama administration’s initiatives. At this moment in time, they prefer raising their citizens out of poverty than kowtowing to an agenda they see as a First World problem created by wealthier countries that use the most energy. Despite this reality, the president quietly announced a major policy shift last June, whereby the U.S. would place severe restrictions on federal financing of coal plants in foreign countries. ”This new policy sends a message that coal is not an acceptable fuel source for the 21st century,” said Justin Guay, international climate and energy representative of the Sierra Club at the time.

That such a message condemns billions of people around the world to a life of subsistence survival — when they survive at all — is of little consequence. Apparently for progressives, “saving the planet” has little to do with saving the people who inhabit it.

While such an agenda has fewer life and death consequences in the United States, the administration is determined to pursue the same economy-ravaging policies here. And once again a president who has made a mockery of the rule of law and the constitutionally-mandated separation of power is determined to advance those policies “with our without” Congress.

Whether he can actually do so remains to be seen. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case on greenhouse gas emissions that could determine if Obama has so broadly interpreted the parameters of the Clean Air Act that he has rendered Congress irrelevant. Briefs filed by business groups and Republicans paint the president’s effort as another overreach by the Executive branch. A brief filed by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) contends the president is attempting “an intolerable invasion of Congress’s domain that threatens to obliterate the line dividing executive from legislative power,” and that regulation imposed under the auspices of the EPA were “perhaps the most audacious seizure of pure legislative power over domestic economic matters attempted by the executive branch” since President Truman’s attempt to nationalize America’s steel mills during the Korean War.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. countered with the administration’s argument. “The E.P.A. determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare in ways that may prove to be more widespread, longer lasting and graver than the effects of any other pollutant regulated under the act,” he wrote in his brief.

The case is a challenge to a 5-4 decision made in 2007, when the Supreme Court required the EPA to regulate the emission of greenhouse gasses from motor vehicles if they endangered the public’s health and welfare. The administration wants to extend that decision to cover stationary power plants, as well as all sources that can annually emit 100 or 250 tons of relevant pollutants. That would give them the potential to regulate millions of pollution sources absent congressional authority to do so. Obama used the same rationale when he ordered the development of new standards for the nation’s heavy-duty trucks earlier this week.

Amanda C. Leiter, a law professor at American University believes a loss by the administration would not have a great impact, since they have other regulatory tools at their disposal. But the political damage could be significant because “it would be painted as another situation in which the Obama administration has overreached against the public will.”

Regardless of the decision, the administration will undoubtedly continue to overreach, aided an abetted by what authors David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin term the “New Leviathan.” They are progressive moneyed interests whose contributions dwarf those of their conservative counterparts, and who are determined to impose their agenda on the nation, regardless of the consequences. In the environmental arena, they are being led by billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer, whose political organization, NextGen Climate Action, aims to raise $100 million to support politicians who champion the man-made climate change agenda. Like so many leftist elitists, he is against the Keystone pipeline that would go a long way towards creating jobs and putting the nation further down the road towards energy independence. He considers climate change the ”generational challenge of the world.”

The real generational challenge, in America at least, is figuring out how to prevent progressives in general, and the Obama administration in particular, from fundamentally transforming the United States into a nation where liberty, freedom and free-market capitalism are regulated out of existence. Make no mistake: those who would employ questionable science to impose what amounts to a death penalty on millions of Third-World residents struggling for their very existence don’t think twice about imposing untold economic hardship on their fellow Americans, 76 percent of whom live “paycheck to paycheck,” for the same reason.

And its not about the environment. As a study by the Science and Public Policy Institute reveals, if Americans completely stopped emitting all carbon immediately — stopped driving, stopped cooling and heating our homes, shut down all the power plants, and even stopped talking – the global temperature would decrease by only 0.17 degrees Celsius by 2100.

As Bjorn Lomborg explains, the United States is already “showing the way” towards a future with cleaner fuel sources. That the Obama administration would sacrifice the well-being of millions of Americans and billions of impoverished people to force-feed that future is precisely what they did to the nation when they force-fed it ObamaCare based on the same litany of hysteria, lies and smears they are using here. One can only wonder when Americans will tire of the progressive lust for power wrapping itself as noble intentions.

Ben Shapiro

» The Left Preaches the Great Apocalypse of Global Warming » Commentary — GOPUSA

This week, Secretary of State John Kerry announced to a group of Indonesian students that global warming was “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” He added, “Because of climate change, it’s no secret that today Indonesia is … one of the most vulnerable countries on Earth. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the entire way of life that you live and love is at risk.”

Meanwhile, Hollywood prepared to drop a new blockbuster based on the biblical story of Noah. The film, directed by Darren Aronofsky, centers on the story of the biblical character who built an ark after God warned him that humanity would be destroyed thanks to its sexual immorality and violent transgressions. The Hollywood version of the story, however, has God punishing humanity not for actual sin, but for overpopulation and global warming — an odd set of sins, given God’s express commandments in Genesis 1:28 to “be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it.”

This weird perspective on sin — the notion that true sin is not sin, but that consumerism is — is actually nothing new. In the 1920s, the left warned of empty consumerism with the fire and brimstone of Jonathan Edwards; Sinclair Lewis famously labeled the American middle class “Babbitts” — characters who cared too much about buying things.

In his novel of the same name, Lewis sneered of his bourgeois antihero, “He had enormous and poetic admiration, though very little understanding, of all mechanical devices. They were his symbols of truth and beauty.” Lewis wrote, through the voice of his radical character Doane, that consumerism has created “standardization of thought, and of course, the traditions of competition. The real villains of the piece are the clean, kind, industrious Family Men who use every known brand of trickery and cruelty to insure the prosperity of their cubs. The worst thing about these fellows it that they’re so good and, in their work at least, so intelligent.”

Lewis, of course, was a socialist. So were anti-consumerism compatriots like H.G. Wells, H.L. Mencken and Herbert Croly. And their brand of leftism was destined to infuse the entire American left over the course of the 20th century. As Fred Siegel writes in his new book, “The Revolt Against The Masses,” this general feeling pervaded the left during the 1950s, even as more Americans were attending symphony concerts than ballgames, with 50,000 Americans per year buying paperback version of classics. That’s because if the left were to recognize the great power of consumerism in bettering lives and enriching culture, the left would have to become the right.

Of course, consumerism is not an unalloyed virtue. Consumerism can be utilized for hedonism. But it can also be utilized to make lives better, offering more opportunity for spiritual development. It’s precisely this latter combination that the left fears, because if consumerism and virtue are allied, there is no place left for the Marxist critique of capitalism — namely that capitalism makes people less compassionate, more selfish, and ethically meager. And so consumerism must be severed from virtue (very few leftists critique Americans’ propensity for spending cash on Lady Gaga concerts) so that it can be castigated as sin more broadly.

In a world in which consumerism is the greatest of all sins, America is the greatest of all sinners, which, of course, is the point of the anti-consumerist critique from the left: to target America. Global warming represents the latest apocalyptic consequence threatened by the leftist gods for the great iniquity of buying things, developing products, and competing in the global marketplace. And America must be called to heel by the great preachers in Washington, D.C., and Hollywood.

Ben Shapiro, 30, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, a radio host on KTTH 770 Seattle and KRLA 870 Los Angeles, Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org, and Senior Editor-at-Large of Breitbart News. He is the New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America.” He lives with his wife and daughter in Los Angeles. To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at http://www.creators.com.

Science Settled: There is No Global Warming

Obama Global WarmingFEBRUARY 11, 2014 BY 
I recently received an unsigned email about my Sierra Club commentary in which I pointed out that it opposes traditional forms of energy and made a passing reference to Obama’s lie that “climate change”, the new name for global warming, was now “settled science.” 

Global warming was never based on real science. It was conjured up using dubious computer models and we were supposed to believe that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could actually predict what the climate would be twenty, fifty, or a hundred years from now.

The writer of the email disagreed with me. “lol you are a f**king idiot. you don’t believe there is global warming going on? you need to let your prejudices go and stop basing your views on what your political stance is…do you research you f**king faggot.”

Now, not everyone who believes in global warming is as rude as this individual and certainly not as ignorant, but his message suggests that those who do not believe in it do so as the result of “a political stance” when, in fact, our views are based on science.

Anyone familiar with my writings knows that a lot of research is involved. In my case, it dates back to the late 1980s when the global warming hoax began to be embraced by politicians like Al Gore who made millions selling worthless “carbon credits” while warning that “Earth has a fever.”

A small army of scientists lined their pockets with government grants to produce data that supported the utterly baseless charge that carbon dioxide was causing the Earth to warm. They castigated other scientists or people like myself as “deniers” while we proffered to call ourselves skeptics. They were joined by most of the media that ignored the real science. And the curriculums in our schools were likewise corrupted with the hoax.

Then, about 17 years ago the Earth began to cool. It had nothing to do with carbon dioxide—which the Environmental Protection Agency deems a “pollutant” despite the fact that all life on Earth would die without it—and everything to do with the SUN.

A few days after the email arrived, two-thirds of the contiguous U.S.A. was covered by snow. As this is being written, Lake Superior is 92% frozen, setting a new record. As of February 5, the entire Great Lakes system was, according to the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, 77% covered with ice.

On February 1st, NOAA and NASA held a joint press conference in which they released data about 2013’s global surface temperature. They made reference to a “pause” in the temperature that began in 1997. Dr. David Whitehouse, science editor for the BBC, noted that “When asked for an explanation for the ‘pause’ by reporters, Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr. Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun, and natural variability. In other words, they don’t know.”

Both of these government agencies, along with others like the EPA and the Department of the Interior, are staffed by people who understand that their employers are deeply committed to the global warming hoax. One should assume that almost anything they have to say about the “pause” is based entirely on politics, not science.

Then, too, despite the many measuring stations from which data is extracted to determine the Earth’s climate, there is a paucity of such stations in COLD places like Siberia. Stations here in the U.S. are often placed in “heat islands” otherwise known as cities. If you put enough of them close to sources of heat, you get thermometer readings that produce, well, heat.

People in the U.S., England, Europe and other areas of the world who do not possess Ph.ds in meteorology, climatology, geology, astronomy, and chemistry have begun to suspect that everything they have been told about global warming is false. Between 1300 and 1850 the northern hemisphere went through a mini-ice age. After that it began to warm up again. So, yes, there was global warming, but it was a natural cycle, not something caused by human beings.

Nature doesn’t care what we do. It is far more powerful than most of us can comprehend.

This brings us back to the Sun which determines, depending on where you are on planet Earth, how warm or cold you feel. The Sun, too, goes through cycles, generally about eleven years long. When it is generating a lot of heat, its surface is filled with sunspots, magnetic storms.

When there are few sunspots, solar radiation diminishes and we get cold. Scientists who study the Sun believe it may encounter another “Maunder minimum”, named after astronomer Edward Maunder, in which the last “Little Ice Age”, between 1645 and 1715, occurred. The Thames in England froze over as did the canals of Holland froze solid.

There is no global warming and scientists like Henrik Svensmark, the director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, believes that “World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more.” I agree.

- See more at: http://www.tpnn.com/2014/02/11/science-settled-there-is-no-global-warming/#sthash.uAitz355.dpuf

By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, January 23 2014

Want to stump a global warming alarmist?

Just ask him to describe how the Great Lakes were originally formed.

At over 94,000 square miles, the Great Lakes constitute the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth, and possess fully 21% of its surface fresh water.  Lake Superior alone is the world’s largest continental lake, while Lake Michigan claims the title of largest freshwater lake entirely within one nation’s borders.

And how were those enormous lakes formed?  By fluctuating climate change approximately 10,000 years ago, as the Ice Age ended and giant glaciers receded so dramatically that they carved massive basins into the continental crust.  In other words, long before the first internal combustion engine or coal-fired electrical plant, the planet experienced a global warming period so pronounced that the world’s largest freshwater lakes were formed.  Imagine the hysteria and politicized attempts to place blame if that was underway today.

That geological history regained relevance this week, as another severe winter freeze descended upon the nation amid the ongoing climate change cacophony.  Specifically, the Great Lakes are currently experiencing their greatest level of freezing in 25 years.  That was several years before Al Gore inflicted “Earth in the Balance” upon the public.

The continually discredited Al Gore aside, The Wall Street Journal detailed the surprising magnitude of the new global cooling crisis this week:

“The Midwest hasn’t had this much ice on the Great Lakes and other bodies of water this early in the season for decades, and another blast of cold is expected this week.  Wind chills as low as 40 degrees below zero are forecast for the Upper Midwest, according to the National Weather Service…  About 60% of the Great Lakes will be under ice cover for the months of January and February, predicts George Leshkevich, a scientist with the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  During the past three decades, the average maximum freeze-over has only been about 50% each year.  Last year, it was roughly 38%.  It has been 25 years since the lakes have had this much ice this early, said Mark Gill, director of vessel traffic services with the U.S. Coast Guard in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, which hit minus-16 degrees on January 3.” 

Over at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), meanwhile, climatologists also confirmed that the nearly two-decade plateau in global surface temperatures continued in 2013.  According to Gavin Schmidt, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, “The trends over the last ten to fifteen years compared to the trends before that do appear to be lower than they were.”  He continued, “We’ve been looking at this in separate work, and partially it seems to be a function of internal variability in the system, so the fact is that we’ve had more La Nina-like conditions over the last few years compared to earlier in the 2000s or in the late 1990s.”

According to climate change alarmists, however, that should not have happened.

Consider that in the two decades since 1997, when that temperature plateau began, China, India and other undeveloped nations have industrialized on a massive scale, meaning enormous increases in human carbon output.  The United States, Europe and other industrialized nations have also continued to grow, continuing their carbon output levels as well.  Yet none of the parallel and consequent increase in global temperatures has occurred, despite confident predictions from global warming alarmists.

“Given that the estimates that the average decadal increase in global surface temperature is 0.2 degrees Celsius, the world is now 0.3 degrees cooler than it should have been,” said BBC astrophysicist and science editor David Whitehouse.  “The pause in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues,” he added.  “Statistically speaking, there has been no trend in global temperatures over this period.”

So we’ve now experienced a global temperature plateau more enduring than the brief warming period that triggered the current politicized global warming movement in the first place.  As illustrated by infamous high-profile reports from The New York Times, Paul Ehrlich, Newsweek and Time in the mid-1970s, global cooling was the supposed climate crisis that decade.  Yet an even longer period of temperature stability hasn’t moderated their confidence or rhetoric.

Perhaps they’ll simply begin claiming that climate stability is its own crisis.

Regardless, global temperatures are constantly warming and cooling, as the geological history of the Great Lakes shows.  It’s something for climate alarmists to reconsider, as they ice skate over portions that haven’t been this frozen since Ronald Reagan was still in the White House and Al Gore was just a Senator.

Professor of Climate Change, Chris Turney

January 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm

The distress call, the icebreakers, and the other scientific research.

Chris Turney, the head of the Antarctic expedition rescued from the ice-trappedAkademik Shokalskiy, is a Professor of Climate Change. It says so in the first sentence of the biographical sketch that appears on Turney’s Amazon.com author page.

20140102-101905.jpgclick to enlarge

Elsewhere, Turney’s publisher for 1912:The Year the World Discovered Antarctica, showcases a review that describes Turney as “a climate scientist.”

But is he an activist first and a scientist second? The Author Page biographical sketch (which was almost certainly written by Turney himself) tells us:

To do something positive about climate change, he helped set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape (http://carbonscape.com/) which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.

As we all know, the climate is always changing. Twenty thousand years ago, most of Canada was covered by ice. Really thick ice. A mile deep in some places. Then the climate changed and much of that ice disappeared. Good riddance. Today, as I write this, the snow is falling, the wind is gusting, and it’s -18C (-4F) outdoors.

When we read that Professor Turney wants to do “something positive about climate change” – he’s actually talking about human-caused climate change. The two are not the same thing. And his company won’t extract carbon from the atmosphere, butcarbon dioxide.

We’re supposed to be impressed by Turley’s stature as a “Scientist” with a capital S. That biographical sketch employs words such as science, scientists, and scientificseven times. But don’t serious scientists use words carefully – with due regard to their actual, real-world meaning? Is Turney more interested in conveying a political message via the word carbon (dirty, sooty, black stuff) than with scientific accuracy (colourless, odourless gas).

Should professors be activists? Is that why the University of New South Wales pays Turney a salary? Would you be pleased to hear that your son or daughter is learning “science” from this man?

Three icebreakers weren’t able to rescue this Professor of Climate Change. At least one of those icebreakers was interrupted delivering vital supplies to other scientists. Here’s what hydrologist Joe McConnell told a journalist via e-mail:

The Australian ice breaker Aurora Australis was here at Casey [Station, Antarctica] in the process of unloading the coming year’s supplies for the station, as well as a number of researchers and their science gear for this summer’s activities, when the emergency response request was issued. The Australians shut down the unloading very quickly and left within a few hours after the request arrived but only about a third of the resupply was completed and a lot of that science gear was still on board. 

The short- and long-term impacts on the Australian science program are pronounced as you can imagine and I understand it is the same for both the Chinese and French programs since their icebreakers were diverted, too. I’ll be sitting down to New Year’s Eve dinner in a few minutes with a number of Australian researchers including the director of the Australian Antarctic Division Tony Fleming – many of these guys can’t complete the research they’ve been planning for years because some or all of their science gear still is on the Aurora. [bold added]

Chris Turney is the Professor of Climate Change who got trapped by ice in high summer. He’s the professor of Climate Change whose distress call profoundly affected other people’s scientific research.


By Kristie Pelletier and Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D
September 7, 2013

Part III—Inflation or Hyperinflation?

Following [Federal Reserve Chairman] Mr. Bernanke‘s extraordinary efforts to debase the U.S. currency in late-2010, the dollar had lost its traditional safe-haven status by early-2011. Whatever global confidence had remained behind the U.S dollar was lost in July and August 2012. That was in response to the lack of political will—shown by those who control the White House and Congress—to address the long-range insolvency of the U.S. government, and as a result of the later credit-rating downgrade to U.S. Treasury debt. —John Williams, American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, 2012

The Obama administration and the mainstream media would have the American people believe that we are in a recovery following the deep recession caused by President Bush. It’s just a matter of time, we are promised, before the economy is once again robust and people are back to work. After all, claims Morgan Stanley’s CEO, James Gorman, “When [bond] rates rise, it is a reflection that the economy is recovering.” Louis Basenese, Co-Founder, Chief Investment Strategist for Wall Street Daily agrees: “Contrary to conventional wisdom that rising rates will undercut this economic recovery, it’s actually a sign that the economy is getting back to normal and won’t need the Fed to prop it up much longer.” The Fed is the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Central Bank.

Unfortunately, these are all empty promises surrounded with flashing lights, bells and whistles to distract the American people from the nasty reality that we are heading for dire trouble. It maybe even a collapse that will make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. This is not the opinion of the authors; it is the concern of dozens of well-known economists and financial advisors cited below. John Williams, in his report above, believes that the “precursors to ultimate dollar disaster are in place; 2014 remains theoutside timing for same.” (Italics added)

U.S. Unemployment Using 1930’s Methodology (1931-1934 and 2009-2012

1931      15.9%      2009      21%
1932      23.6%      2010      22%
1933      24.9%      2011      22%
1934      21.7%      2012      23%
1935      20.1%      2013*    23%

*As of June, 2013

Source: Robert Margo. Employment and Unemployment in the 1930s. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 7(2), 1993, pp. 41-59.

Current unemployment: John Williams. Alternate Unemployment Charts. Last Updated, July 5, 2013.

Williams is a top economist who has had numerous major Fortune 500 corporations as clients. He realized the government was cooking the books to make the economy appear better than it is. He found it to be so bad that any semblance to reality was coincidental. For instance, if today’sunemployment was calculated the same way it was in the Great Depression(including long-term unemployment), it would be over 23 percent; just as bad as the Great Depression. Obama (and presidents before him) have covered up the suffering Americans should be undergoing with the huge government deficits and mammoth debt accumulations needed to pay for unemployment, welfare and other distorted social programs. Even the more July, 2013 U6 unemployment rate which includes those want to work full time, but can’t find a full time job, is 14.0 percent.

While the Obama administration is trying to hide the same type of suffering that occurred during the Great Depression with huge deficit spending, the facade is starting to crumble. Median family income is down by a minimum of $2,500 annually. Increasingly, it is being called the new normal. As is discussed in Part V of this Financial Death Spiral series, Obamacare and Obama’s Keynesian economics is destroying American lives and families. Tragically, this debt and Quantitative Easing (printing money out of thin air) will not end well for the U.S. and her citizens.


Similar to the corrupted unemployment statistics used to hide the shocking truth, consumer inflation today (July 2013) as calculated using 1980methodologywould be 9 percent. It is not the 2.5 percent reported by the federal government. While harming everyone, this hurts seniors on Social Security (SS) the most.SS benefits are calculated using the 2.5 percent consumer price index (CPI). While real inflation has been close to ten percent every year for the past three years, SS benefits have only gone up 2.5 percent; for just one year. SS benefits are buying less and less over time.

CPI no longer includes food and fuel costs to the consumer. Billionaire Steve Forbes (Forbes Media), Bob Wiedemer (economist and author of NY Times Best-Seller Aftershock), James Rickards (economist and security advisor to the Pentagon, CIA and the Director of National Security) and Sean Hyman (global currency analyst and advisor) presented stunning information in their video presentation called “Currency Wars.”After doing the math, they found that food prices have inflated 148 percent and energy prices 468 percent since 2001. This is a shock to the entire economic system, but especially impacts the poor and elderly consumers the most on a day to day basis.

There is a huge difference between what the Fed is doing today compared to the Great Depression. During the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve (Fed) contracted the economy by printing less money. Today the Fed isexpanding the economy by deficit spending and printing money out of thin air called “monetization.” Otherwise, the recession of 2009-2011 would have likely turned into a real depression. Nonetheless, even though the impact of the recession was initially hidden by government spending, the underlying economic hollowing is still occurring. The correction has not yet occurred. The longer the correction is postponed the worse the consequences, perhaps much worse than the Great Depression. Williams believes this will lead to hyperinflation:

The U.S. economic and systemic-solvency crises of the last five years continue to deteriorate. Yet they remain just the precursors to the coming Great Collapse: a hyperinflationary great depression. The unfolding circumstance will encompass a complete loss in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar; a collapse in the normal stream of U.S. commercial and economic activity; a collapse in the U.S. financial system, as we know it; and a likely realignment of the U.S. political environment. Outside timing on the hyperinflation remains 2014, but events of the last year have accelerated the movement towards this ultimate dollar catastrophe.

Is the hyperinflation Williams predicts correct? Economists sharply disagree. For instance, economist James Montier doesn’t think so. Typically, economists believe that hyperinflation occurs when nations print money out of thin air (monetization) in order to cover huge deficit spending. It’s the classic theory of too much money chasing too few goods, resulting in rising prices to compete for the too few goods. If that was the only thing that caused hyperinflation, the U.S. would already be in it. Most economists thought inflation would skyrocket when the Fed starting monetizing the debt in November of 2008.

To help explain why the U.S. is not already in hyperinflation, Monitier has to get down into the weeds where most American’s eyes glaze over and they lose interest – at their peril. If this describes you, understand this:President Obama’s constantly claim he is “saving the middle class” is nothing but misdirection and theater. In fact, he is destroying it. To grasp what is happening, try to wade through the following pages of discussion. ExplainsMontier:

It takes something much worse than simply printing money [to create hyperinflation]. To create the situations that give rise to hyperinflation’s, history teaches us that a massive supply shock [disasters that interrupt supply of goods, like war], often coupled with external debts denominated in a foreign currency, is required, and that social unrest and distributive conflict help to transmit the shock more broadly. On the basis of these preconditions, I would argue that those forecasting hyperinflation in nations such as the US, the UK, or Japan are suffering from hyperinflation hysteria.”

Montier gives numerous examples of this fundamental need to create a massive supply shock. One of the most widely known examples of hyperinflation is the Weimar Republic (Germany). Germany’s productive capacity had been significantly damaged by World War I, both in terms of factories destroyed and the resources redirected to military use. These events clearly constituted a large supply shock. Following the war, the allies forced war reparations on the Republic which had to be repaid in gold. Germany was expected to earn this gold through exportation of manufactured goods, but it no longer had the productive capacity to even meet domestic demand, let alone have enough to export much of anything to achieve income needed to buy gold. This added even more shock to the ability of Germany to supply products of every sort.

Germany argued that the reparations were to blame for the hyperinflation. The unfavorable trade balance (lots of imports but no exports) caused the depreciation of the German mark. Inflation was“not the cause of the increase in prices and of the depreciation of the mark; but depreciation of the mark [was] the cause of the increase in prices and of the paper mark issues.”

Is the U.S. Heading for Inflation?

Certainly, Montier and other like-minded economists are correct as far as they take it. Since the U.S. has not suffered from massive supply shock like a war, this could be part of the reason we have not seen high inflation, let alone hyperinflation. Even so, inflation is much higher than the government would have us believe – up to 13 percent since 2008 according to Williams.

However, the world has never seen the type of economic crisis that exists today. As detailed in our companion articles, “The Financial Death Spiral, Parts I & II – Global Troubles” Europe, Japan, China and many other nations are on the verge of collapse. Japan’s bond market is in meltdown and China’s hidden debt puts a lie to all the glowing prosperity it publicly shows the world. The Third Currency War and the attack on U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency spell big problems for everyone, especially Americans.Montier even admits the European quagmire, created by socialist overspending and bad policy decisions could lead to Eurozone hyperinflation:

If one were to worry about hyperinflation anywhere, I believe it would have to be with respect to the break-up of the eurozone. Such an event could create the preconditions for hyperinflation (an outcome often ignored by those discussing the costs of a break-up). Indeed, the past warns of this potential outcome: the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union all led to the emergence of hyperinflation!

Montier, however, is not thinking big enough, nor is he considering the potentially cataclysmic impact of the loss of the dollar’s reserve currency status. Nor has he considered debt in the brew of troubles discussed previously. The U.S. national debt is $17 trillion with another $125 trillion inunfunded entitlement liabilities as of August 2013. That’s over $1.2 million per taxpayer. That’s not even including state debt and unfunded liabilities of over $4 trillion and $2.8 trillion, respectively.

Stansberry notes that “We began the year 2013 with a net public debt that has more than doubled since the year BEFORE Barack Obama took office…Various other government agencies and private companies taken over by the government also have obligations of nearly another $5 trillion.” That totals to $27 trillion! We have more government debt than any country in the history of the world, including all of Europe.

There is only one bright spot. Personal debt is going down as private citizens are getting out of debt as fast as they can. Personal purchases are almost in balance with people’s paychecks for the first time since 1965. Citizens are apparently a lot smarter than their government.

This unprecedented increase in debt due to a failed economic theory called Keynesian economics. This will be discussed in Part V of the Financial Death Spiral series. It is crystal clear, however, that the Keynesian model the U.S. (and Europe) has been following since Franklin D. Roosevelt is not only reckless, but insane.

To put this in context, the Fed cites the M0 –all U.S. dollars in the entire world at any one moment in time – skyrocketed from about $26 trillion in July, 2012 to $31 trillion in July, 2013 – a 19 percent leap! This is the result monetization. True that $31 trillion is recycled many times during the year to add up to hundreds of trillions of dollars, but you get the point. This is so serious that billionaire Jim Rogers, founder of the Quantum Fund and creator of Rogers International Commodities Index (RICI), has warned, “There’s this gigantic artificial flow of money floating into our economy, and this is going to end badly because it is artificial.” Rogers continues in another interview, “The first two central banks in the U.S. went bust and the Greenspan-Bernanke Fed will, too.” Rogers is so convinced of the coming collapse he has pulled all his money out of the U.S.

There is simply no way we can possibly pay off the national debt and unfunded entitlement liabilities. None.The only possible exception is to rein in the Fed, slash unneeded regulations to allow the free market to work like it should, and dramatically reduce the size and funding of the federal government. Even then, we would have to prepare for a decade or more of belt-tightening. More on this in Part V of the Financial Death Spiral series. Unfortunately, the present administration and the desire of the citizenry to demand more and more government handouts (as shown in the ballot box and polls), the probability of that happening is near zero. The only other possibility is high inflation or hyperinflation when the dollar is debased to essentially zero, allowing the debt to essentially become worthless.

It’s actually worse. The M1 Money Supply– money that is not in the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve, or in vaults of depository institutions[a] – onlyincreased 11 percent compared to 19 percent for the M0 monetary supply. That’s almost half the percentage increase of the M0 supply created with Quantitative Easing. If the M1 supply is only increased at 50 percent of the M0 increase, half of the M0 increase went into the Treasury, Fed or other depository vaults, not into Main Street where it would have benefited the middle class. However, it would have also caused inflation to jump.

The federal government’s claim that our inflation is only 2.5 percent is a malevolent misdirect designed to deceive the American people while our government and the Fed are bleeding us dry, all while papering over the real truth of the U.S economy. Since Federal Reserve Enabling Act requires U.S. citizens to pay back most of this insane borrowing,[b] the Fed and U.S. government is also stealing from the middle class to make the rich richer. That is outright theft on a staggering scale.

While Obama and the progressives badmouth the 1% for being too greedy, it’s actually the Obama administration, the progressives on both sides of the isle, and the Fed that are guilty of making it happen. The so-called 1% is only doing what they are legally allowed to do. While the 1% is not guiltless, the real scam belongs to Obama and the progressives who are guilty of creating this monster, with no small pressure from lobbyists, while deftly shifting the blame onto the Republicans and the 1%.

Going back to the conflicting theories of Montier and Williams discussed in the introduction of Part III, we are not having a “massive supply crises triggered by a war” (although the currency war could start an conventional war), as Montier says is needed to create hyperinflation, but a massive crisis triggered by the huge debt, the Fed’s monetary debasement, currency war, and/or loss of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency as described by Williams. The U.S. could survive any one of the financial crises discussed in this series, except the loss of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. But, not all of them simultaneously.We seem to be approaching the perfect storm for a major financial collapse and perhaps hyperinflation.

Stansberry summarizes the deep concern of dozens of economists/financial experts when he says:

I expect there will be a near-complete shut-down of the American economy. Life as we have known it for more than 40 years will essentially cease to exist. Our governments on both the Federal and State level will shut down. Banks will not open. Businesses will at least temporarily shutter their doors. I expect we’ll see martial law, enforced by the U.S. military.

Deceit seems to rule in Washington no matter who is president or in power in Congress. Unfortunately this is one of the symptoms of a government having almost no checks and balances. It’s perhaps worse when progressive democrats are in power because they salivate at the idea of big government having absolute power to crush all opposition, while getting wealthy at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve. Republican progressives can be as bad. They are the primary architects who salivate after military might and have conspired with the progressive liberals to create a world government and constructed the financial house of cards that put us in this financial death spiral.

How Quantitative Easing is already causing the bond market to crash, soon to be followed by the stock market and high inflation (maybe hyperinflation) is the subject of Part IV in the Financial Death Spiral series.

Click here for part —–> 1234,

Part I—The Disintegration of the Global Financial Architecture
Part II—China, Currency Wars and the U.S. Dollar
Part III—Inflation or Hyperinflation?
Part IV—The Bond Market Crash
Part V—The Failure of Keynesian Economics
Part VI—The Success of Austrian Economics
Part VII—The Root of What’s Wrong – Progressivism

[a] M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler’s checks of non bank issuers; (3) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (4) other checkable deposits(OCDs), consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) and automatic transfer service (ATS) accounts at depository institutions, credit union share draft accounts, and demand deposits at thrift institutions.

[b] G. Edward Griffin. The Creature from Jekyll Island.

© 2013 Michael Coffman – All Rights Reserved

Kristie Pelletierhas a psychology degree and is a freelance writer and researcher. She has done research and writing with Dr. Coffman on national and geopolitical issues for nearly 20 years.

Dr. Coffman is President of Environmental Perspectives Incorporated (epi-us.com) and CEO of Sovereignty International (sovereignty.net) in Bangor Maine. He has had over 40 years of university teaching, research and consulting experience in forestry and environmental sciences and now geopolitics. He was one of four who stopped the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity one hour before the Senate cloture vote. The Biodiversity Treaty is one of the major treaties promoted by Agenda 21. He produced the acclaimed DVD Global Warming or Global Governance (warmingdvd.com) disproving man-caused global warming—another major theme of Agenda 21.

Dr. Coffman’s book, Plundered, How Progressive Ideology is Destroying America (AmericaPlundered.com) details how the American people are being indoctrinated and bullied into a very destructive belief system called progressivism in the same manner described in this article. His and co-Author Kate Mathieson’s newest book, Radical Islam, The Plan to Take America for the Global Islamic State, provides shocking evidence of how there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, and how by political correctness is blinding Americans to the real danger that the Obama administration is putting the U.S. in by putting Islamists in high administrative positions and to define U.S. policy. Equally shocking is the comparison of the Bible and Qur’an. It’s a wake-up call to America. He can be reached at 207-945-9878.

E-Mail: mcoffman@epi-us.com

Website: DiscerningToday.org


Is Congress Trying to Exempt Itself From Obamacare?

The new health care law requires Congress to buy insurance through the exchanges. That may be a problem.

by  | April 25, 2013 10:25 AM EDT

Bit of a stir this morning, as Politico reports that Congress is considering exempting its staff from an Obamacare provision which will require all congressmen and staffers to get their health insurance through the exchanges.  Apparently, it’s not clear that the government is authorized to actually pay for this insurance, meaning that the folks on Capitol Hill might have to buy insurance out of their own pocket.  (The ruling from the Office of Personnel Management, which governs this sort of question, is still pending.)

As you can imagine, Congress and their staffers are not happy about the prospect of paying for their own health insurance.  So Politico reports that they’re discussingmaybe getting together and offering themselves a little relief from the law.  Apparently, it’s a lot easier to get Congress to talk about exempting themselves from Obamacare than it is to get them to talk about exempting the millions of other Americans who will be affected.

Ezra Kleinargues that no, they’re not talking about exempting themselves from Obamacare, just this specific provision, which Klein calls “a drafting error”.  In response to which, I’d offer two observations:

First, this is, in fact, about exempting themselves from Obamacare.  This is a provision of Obamacare.  It is in the bill.  You may think that it shouldn’t be in the bill, or that it shouldn’t be in the bill in the way that it’s written.  But–assuming that these discussions are actually happening–Congress is considering exempting itself from the one provision of the bill that actually directly affects Congress.  As far as they’re concerned, this is exempting themselves from Obamacare; the rest of the bill affects Hill staffers only indirectly.

Furthermore, this exemption is important.  There are very good reasons to require Congress to “eat their own cooking”, especially on a big bill like this.  At least one source in the Politico article says that they’re considering junking this provision entirely and moving Congress and staffers back to the federal employee benefits system.  This would be good for them, but bad for the rest of us, and they should be ashamed to even consider it.

The second point I’d make is that there seems to be a growing consensus among Obamacare’s supporters that all problems with the law are due to either Republican opposition, or “drafting errors”.  No tax subsidies in the bill for federal exchanges?  Drafting error.  Implementation running behind?  Don’t blame HHS, blame Republicans.  You would think that the PPACA had delegated responsibility for implementation to the Republican National Committee, rather than the Department of Health and Human Services.

Opponents have long been saying that the bill was basically one long drafting error, and now its supporters seem to be suggesting that they’re right.  Have we now arrived at a point where the optimistic case for the bill that was an incredibly sloppy first draft that obviously required the active cooperation of the opposition to make it work?  And if so, has this made anyone question the wisdom of passing it in the first place?  If you want to get to the other side of a deep ravine, and the only way to do so is to ride a unicycle across a tightrope while juggling burning torches, maybe it’s time to rethink your goal.  And if you decide to go ahead, you probably shouldn’t blame anyone else if you go down in flames.

Of course, this particular fooforaw may be a tempest in a teapot: OPM may rule that they can offer subsidies to staffers.  But we shouldn’t forget this.  If Congress wants to exempt itself from the Obamacare exchanges, it should go ahead and offer the same relief to everyone else. There are a lot of people out there at risk of losing their employer health insurance and being forced onto the exchanges.  Surely they deserve the same consideration as Congress.


© 2013 The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC

Cost of Arctic Methane Release Could Be ‘Size of Global Economy’, Experts Warn

July 24, 2013 — Researchers have warned of an “economic time-bomb” in the Arctic, following a ground-breaking analysis of the likely cost of methane emissions in the region.

Another Chicken little  Warning!!!!  

Economic modelling shows that the methane emissions caused by shrinking sea ice from just one area of the Arctic could come with a global price tag of 60 trillion dollars — the size of the world economy in 2012.

Writing in a Comment piece in the journal, Nature, academics argue that a significant release of methane from thawing permafrost in the Arctic could have dire implications for the world’s economy. The researchers, from Cambridge and Rotterdam, have for the first time calculated the potential economic impact of a scenario some scientists consider increasingly likely — that methane from the East Siberian Sea will be emitted as a result of the thaw.

This constitutes just a fraction of the vast reservoirs of methane in the Arctic, but scientists believe that the release of even a small proportion of these reserves could trigger possibly catastrophic climate change. According to the new assessment, the emission of methane below the East Siberian Sea alone would also have a mean global impact of 60 trillion dollars.

The ground-breaking Comment piece was co-authored by Gail Whiteman, from Erasmus University; Chris Hope, Reader in Policy Modelling at Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge; and Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

“The global impact of a warming Arctic is an economic time-bomb,” Whiteman, who is Professor of sustainability, management and climate change at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University (RSM), said.

Wadhams added: “The imminent disappearance of the summer sea ice in the Arctic will have enormous implications for both the acceleration of climate change, and the release of methane from off-shore waters which are now able to warm up in the summer. This massive methane boost will have major implications for global economies and societies.”

Most discussion about the economic implications of a warming Arctic focuses on benefits to the region, with increased oil-and-gas drilling and the opening up of new shipping routes that could attract investments of hundreds of billions of dollars. However, the effects of melting permafrost on the climate and oceans will be felt globally, the authors argue.

Applying an updated version of the modelling method used in the UK government’s 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, and currently used by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the authors calculate the global consequences of the release of 50 gigatonnes of methane over a decade from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea.

“The methane release would bring forward the date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2 degrees C by between 15 and 35 years,” said Chris Hope. “In the absence of climate-change mitigation measures, the PAGE09 model calculates that it would increase mean global climate impacts by $60 trillion.”

If other impacts such as ocean acidification are factored in, the cost would be much higher. Some 80% of these costs will be borne by developing countries, as they experience more extreme weather, flooding, droughts and poorer health, as Arctic warming affects climate.

The research also explored the impact of a number of later, longer-lasting or smaller pulses of methane, and the authors write that, in all these cases, the economic cost for physical changes to the Arctic is “steep.”

The authors write that global economic institutions and world leaders should “kick-start investment in rigorous economic modelling” and consider the impacts of a changing Arctic landscape as far outweighing any “short-term gains from shipping and extraction.”

They argue that economic discussions today are missing the big picture on Arctic change. “Arctic science is a strategic asset for human economies because the region drives critical effects in our biophysical, political and economic systems,” write the academics. Neither the World Economic Forum nor the International Monetary Fund currently recognise the economic danger of Arctic change.

According to Whiteman, “Global leaders and the WEF and IMF need to pay much more attention to this invisible time-bomb. The mean impacts of just this one effect — $60 trillion — approaches the $70-trillion value of the world economy in 2012.”


Things That Will Cost More Under Obama’s Climate Change Plan

June 26, 2013 at 7:20 am

President Obama doesn’t “have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society.” And he probably considers you a member if you disagree with him on his crushing regulatory approach to climate change.

The heck of it is, the policies he advocates actually would not help the Earth.

Before Obama’s speech yesterday, Heritage’s Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow, Nicolas Loris, explained the President’s dilemma:

But let’s pretend we were able to stop emitting all carbon immediately. Forget the electricity to cool our homes in the summer months. Shut down the power plants. Stop driving our cars. No talking. The Science and Public Policy Institute found that the global temperature would decrease by 0.17 degrees Celsius—by 2100. These regulations are all pain no gain.

That’s what President Obama’s climate change plan would not do.

What President Obama’s climate change plan would do: increase the price of just about everything.

Whether it’s regulating appliances or eliminating coal from the nation’s energy diet, Obama’s plan has the same effect: hiking the cost of living.

Think through your day. Everything you buy, everything you eat, everything you wear… it was all produced using energy. Just a few of the things that will be more expensive under Obama’s plan:

  • Heating and cooling your home
  • Buying a car and driving—from your work commute to soccer practice and everywhere in between
  • Turning on the lights
  • Washing and drying clothes

But that’s not all. Think even bigger. What will it mean for President Obama’s war on coal tohike natural gas prices by 42 percent?

Sure, you may have a gas-powered furnace or oven. But natural gas is powering much more, as Heritage’s Loris, David Kreutzer, and Kevin Dayaratna explain:

Natural gas is not only a critical source of electricity generation; natural gas and other gases extracted from natural gas provide a feedstock for fertilizers, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, waste treatment, food processing, fueling industrial boilers, and much more.

From food processing to waste treatment—the entire cycle of life will cost more!

Of course, it doesn’t help that you will also have less income. Forthcoming research from these Heritage experts shows that Obama’s anti-coal policies will cause a family of four tolose more than $1,000 in annual income.

Didn’t hear this on the news? Then your friends didn’t, either. Share this with them now.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Quick Hits:

Posted in Energy and Environment [slideshow_deploy]

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 186 other followers