• Blog

    Dave Collum: 2019 Year in Review (Part 1)

    If it happened this year & mattered, it's covered in here
    by Adam Taggart

    Friday, December 20, 2019, 4:44 PM

Every year, friend-of-the-site David Collum writes a detailed “Year in Review” synopsis full of keen perspective and plenty of wit. This year’s is no exception. As with past years, he has graciously selected PeakProsperity.com as the site where it will be published in full. It’s quite longer than our usual posts, but worth the time to read in full. A downloadable pdf of the full article is available here, for those who prefer to do their power-reading offline. — cheers, Adam

David B. Collum
Betty R. Miller Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology – Cornell University
Email: [email protected] – Twitter: @DavidBCollum


“I hope David comes to his senses.”

~ Nassim Taleb (@nntaleb), best-selling author and Professor at NYU

It is that time of year again when I sit down and, in a frenzied stream of subconsciousness, bang out my view of the world. It’s my 11th chronicling of human folly and anthropogenic global idiocy (AGI).1 It’s like when Forest Gump jogs: I start writing, go on too long, and then just stop. Forty years of writing about organic chemistry has taught me that you do not understand something till you finish writing about it. Constrained by time—you can’t write an annual synopsis in May—I have made sure to sacrifice quality not length.

“Huge fan. Please continue to remain above the din.”

~ Guy Adami (@GuyAdami), trader and commentator on CNBC’s Fast Money

*I am the din, Guy.

Figure 1. An original by Candace E. Cornell (my wife) dedicated to Jeff Macke (my Bud and the Banksy of Wall Street).

There was a mad chemist named Dave
His Year In Review is the rave
With Epstein and Powell
And repos most foul
His comments are sure to be grave.

The writeup is a little different this year; there are fewer topics, especially on the finance side. Despite all the reading, sorting, and culling, I have little to add about Trump, impeachments, beltway politics, and swaths of the finance world. Our debts, pensions, and valuations were beyond repair last December; they have only gotten worse. The markets have been muffin-topping for too long; I am waiting for change and tired of being the Gail Dudek of the modern era. I also fought the Balrog way more than usual on a few topics just to get thumbless grasps. That pain is here for all to see.

For the newcomers, I am a non-Easter Worshipping, openly white male who vaguely remembers being heterosexual. The first section is my first-ever authorized autobiography. This is for parents who think their kids are incorrigible idiots; that won’t change, but your kids might become functional. The Table of Contents follows, allowing you to cherry pick topics.

About the Author–A Brief Autobiography

The question that I am always asked on podcasts is how does a chemist end up writing about economics and politics and why? With that said, here are some low- and high-water marks en route to the present. Think of it as my college essay, including the omnipresent dead grandparent that seems to be irresistible to high school seniors looking for a tear jerker. It’s tangential and vaguely inappropriate but free and worth every penny.

I’ve always had extracurricular stuff, been a little nuts, and located somewhere on the humor spectrum. There were plenty of sports and a smattering of school. The rest was “sex and drugs and rock and roll.” I was getting shitfaced and hitch hiking around town at 12, smoking pot at 14, and dropping acid by 15. I took a friend’s college boards to get him a Texas football scholarship with better scores than on my own. By 12th grade the drugs were in the rearview mirror. Having bagged a 3.4 GPA it was off to Cornell. Really? You can get into Cornell with a 3.4 GPA? In a word, no. Not even close. Rumors of being 1/1024th native American on my paternal grandmother’s side remain undocumented. I was a gymnast at Cornell but, having grown to a towering 6 feet, no Nike endorsements appeared. (Relatively speaking, I sucked.) The admissions mystery resolved itself decades later from my grandfather’s obituary revealing he was Vice Chancellor of the Board of Regents of New York, President of Cornell’s National Alumni Association, and member of the Cornell Council. You think that might have helped, eh? Don’t need bribes with that dossier.

A crash course in maturation—12 hours a day, 7 days a week in the library—got me another 3.4 GPA and a BS in biology. Survival skills? You betcha. Genius? Not a chance. The path, however, was tortuous. Following a one semester non-majors sophomore organic chemistry course—Yup: pre-med—I went straight into a second semester graduate-level organic chemistry course. There were a few bumps—some really big ones actually—but I survived. Taking physical chemistry for laughs but with no calculus and surrounded by engineers was problematic too. My only F on a test at Cornell was a physical chemistry test on “kinetics”, which I basically blew off being too busy trying to not flunk that organic grad course.

Recognizing that my concentration in genetics was leading me into a dying field, I used electives to take more graduate-level organic chemistry courses and then headed off to the Big Apple to study organic chemistry at Columbia. Their peachy idea was to make me take graduate level quantum mechanics—the real stuff with Bessel functions, second-order perturbation theory, and unrecognizable symbols. This time, lacking calculus transcended problematic to third-trimester fugly. An 8 on a test and a totally unearned D foreshadowed greatness. (They had to fake a pass on the now-defunct German test too.) After dodging expulsion, in cahoots with another second-year grad and brand-new assistant professor, I synthesized a molecule that was sufficiently ginormous and complex to catch the world’s attention. After completing my second year of graduate school—two friggin’ years—I was on the job market. WTF? Unsolicited interviews from Cornell and Cal Tech were particularly heady stuff for a total meatloaf. One thing was clear: I was the most overrated graduate student in the 1,000-year history of graduate education. I got my PhD in a little over two and a half years, skipped the usual two-year post-doc, and returned to Cornell at the ripe old age of 25 as the most unprepared assistant professor in history. (It was awkward running into my freshman chemistry TA—the one from whom I earned a C+— trying to finish his degree.)

Undeterred by my lack of prowess in math (polymathless) or kinetics, and never having studied anything with a metal in it, I set out to become….wait for it…an organometallic kineticist. I thought it would be fun. With considerable pride I am now a reasonably prominent organometallic kineticist, although I still can’t count to 21 without removing my shoes and dropping trow. (That joke caught me some serious flak at a meeting from angry prototypes of social justice warriors.)

As an assistant professor, I was also head gymnastics coach for two years and casual gymnast for four. I took up Taekwondo, eventually attaining the rank of 3rd dan (3rd degree black belt). The TKD team members and I loved the symbolism-rich beatings on each other. It was probably my happiest decade. After some health issues, a subsequent back surgery, and a failed comeback, my next goal was to get fat as shit and way out of shape. I was a natural. I also am now a chair professor and was director of undergraduate and graduate studies, associate chair, and department chair for four years (four years longer than I should have been), prompting many to channel Scott McNealy and ask, “What were they thinking?” I have enough scars—chicks dig scars—to guarantee I will not be a dean of any flavor. All this time my wife’s chronic health problems called on me to do waaaay more child rearing of two boys than I had bargained for. I really don’t want to hear whining about how hard it is to balance personal and professional lives. It’s fiction. If your gonads are big enough, gravity keeps you grounded through the chaos.

So now you can see that writing about politics and economics as a chemist follows the pattern. I became a financially woke boomer and hunkered down. I will retire from chemistry at either 70 or 75, identify as a 20-year-old super model, and walk the runway for Victoria’s Secret.


Trigger Warning:

This is satirical and comedic. Somebody has to get hurt. Today it may be your turn.
If you are a douche bag who cannot take a joke, remember: nobody is making you read this.

Footnotes appear as superscripts with hyperlinks in the Links section. The whole beast can be downloaded as a single PDF here or viewed in parts via the hot-linked contents as follows:

Part 1

Part 2



I read many blogs, but those I read religiously include mailings from Ron Griess’s The Chart Store, Jim Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, Bill Fleckenstein’s Daily Rap, Tony Greer’s daily TGMacro mailings, Grant Williams Things That Make You Go Hmmm, Automatic Earth, Jesse Felder’s blog, and selected podcasts from Grant Williams’ and Raoul Pal’s RealVisionTV. I am a huge supporter of Adam Taggart’s and Chris Martenson’s Peak Prosperity. And then there’s Zerohedge: you can love ‘em or hate ‘em, but I am a die-hard fan of Zerohedge.

“Maturing is realizing how many things don’t require your comment.”

~ @LifeTipsPage

The personalized chat board called Twitter is also amazing. For a chemist trying to snarf up wisdom outside my discipline, it is irreplaceable. Although you can follow anybody you want, it gets special when you get the double follow—you follow each other—because communication kicks up three notches. You both see each other’s Tweets, and you can direct message (chat privately). My double access to such luminaries increased in 2019 to include Bass, Hussman, Adami, Bianco, the Pomboys, McClellan, Mish, Achuthan, Hemke, Roche, and Chanos. And then there are those “holy shit” moments that are Twitter Trophy Catches:

The challenge posed by Twitter, however, is that you progress from being highly connected to hyper connected, which mutates you from a reader to a responder. I haven’t fully adapted because I’m having too much fun. Customized “lists” become imperative. Of course, there’s no shortage of people to fill your echo chamber and trolls to question your parentage.

Creation of the Year in Review

“It was either write or die for me.”

~ Michael Hastings, killed while researching corruption in the FBI

I am also asked how and why I write this beast? I wake at around 7:00 AM, make The Boss breakfast, read and open email, go to work, and camp in front of my computer doing my job and my “extracurriculars.” I am in front of a computer for 18 waking hours day, which leaves plenty of time for both work and screwing off. The weekends are no different. All year I throw notes, quotes, and links into word files kept open on all computers and drag graphics into folders. By October I have amassed up to 1500 graphics and approximately 500-600 pages that look like this:

I sort in October, write in November, and edit in December. (During crunch time it invades my work day.) By the end of November I am in the Valley of Death having amassed >120 pages of poorly written, unedited, unreferenced, and humorless text unsupported with graphics. That is my Epstein moment, but I edit my way out.

“The brightest people I have met share a superpower that would serve investors well—the ability to make inherently complex things simple and understandable.”

~ Jim O’Shaunghnessy (@jposhaughnessy), Founder, Chairman & Co-Chief Investment Officer, OSAM LLC

Why bother is a relatively subtle question that I have to answer for myself every October. Many let news events, pithy quotes, world-class wise cracks, deep thoughts, flashes of wisdom, and random musings pass them by into the void of lost memories. I try to capture and make sense of them. This is true even for the parts that reside on the cutting room floor mercifully hidden from the reader.

“I know. You get it, but let me write it anyway. I need the catharsis.”

~ Grant Williams (@ttmygh), hedge fund manager, blogger, and founder of RealVisionTV

My Personal Year

“The only thing nearly as enlightening as reading David Collum’s epic Year in Review is listening to him and Chris Martenson riff about its highlights. Strap in, grab some eggnog, and listen to this year’s recap.”

~ Seeking Alpha (@SeekingAlpha), finance blog

“You have a great voice—a combination of Andy Rooney and Albert Brooks.”

~ Mark Spiegel (@mrkbspiegel), Stanphyl Capital and “wiseguy”

I did a lot of interviews and podcasts this year, all unscripted. I’ve concluded that there is almost no topic for which I cannot muster an opinion. A record-setting seven chats with Chris Irons at Quoth the Raven (QTR) included one that lit off some fireworks (below).1–7 (It is said that those who curse are “more authentic.” Chris and I are the Real McCoys.) Phil Kennedy orchestrated three multi-participant interviews with gold bugs Dave Kranzler of Investment Research Dynamics, Bill Murphy of GATA, Rob Kirby of Kirby Analytics, Peter Hug, Mises Institute head Jeff Deist, and Bitcoin hodler Trace Mayer.8,9 A Zach Abraham interview (KYRRadio) was a planned prelude to a debate with David Andolfatto of the Saint Louis Fed that broke off at the last minute.10 (I suspect David finally realized he doesn’t share my views of the Fed.)

Other podcasts include long-time friends and confidants Jim Kunstler11 and Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity,12 Kenneth Ameduri of Crush the Street,13 Craig Hemke of TF Metals Report,14 Jason Burack of Main Street for Wall Street,15 Elijah Johnson of Silver Doctors,16 Patrick Donohoe on Wealth Standard Podcast,17 Jason Hartman of the Creating Wealth Podcast,18 Lee Stranahan and Garland Nixon on RT’s Fault Lines,19 Kevin Muir and Patrick Ceresna on Market Huddle,20 Sam McCulloch on End of the Chain (out of Moscow),21 and the San Francisco Book Review,22 State of the Markets Podcast with Tim Price and Paul Rodriguez,23 Fergus Hodgson and Brien Lundin of the Gold Newsletter Podcast,24 Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert on RT’s Keiser Report,25 and even a local radio show.26

“One reason I quit doing interviews after years and years and years was because I was making things up.”

~ Bernie Taupin, Elton John’s lyricist

I got a bucket-list interview with Tony Greer on RealVisionTV that became “The Lost Episode”. The fully formatted 50-minute version disappeared and was replaced by a relatively content-free seven-minute version mysteriously timed with a staff change.27 It was gone until divine intervention resurrected it just weeks ago.28 Now if I can get one more—a Joe Rogan podcast—it will be off with Frodo on the boat loaded with elven chicks to a better place.

I seem to get up to my kneecaps in at least one brouhaha each year. This year I joined a flash mob that included some serious academic thought leaders like Pinkus and Petersen to keep Peter Boghossian from getting fired from Portland State.29 I also unknowingly joined forces with Donald Trump Jr. and Nigel Farage to pressure Facebook to stop blocking links to Zerohedge articles.30 Meet-ups with Tony Greer, Steve Moore, and Hootie (Figure 2) were notable. My amateur profiling of Moore detected profound concern about Kavanaugh-like hearings for his appointment to the Federal Reserve. I suggested beta blockers. He dropped out instead. Could be worse, Steve: Hootie died of West Nile Virus that night. People, not places or activities, are my bucket list.

Figure 2. Moore, Greer, and Hootie (over shoulder).

A few million bucks arriving from the National Institutes of Health for five years of research is what Wall Street calls “fuck-you money.” My record of 22 out of 23 funded Federal grants over the last three decades is satisfying given how many folks assured me I would never get funded. I published a modest 7 papers, but they are beasts. My current goal is to convince the chemistry world that after 4.5 billion years it is about God-damned time we take organosodium chemistry seriously.

I live a Utopian existence in Ithaca, the #1-ranked college town for the third year in a row.31 My colleagues are great because we work hard to avoid dickweeds [insert joke here]. Real estate is cheap: my house hangs off a 100-foot cliff looking over Cayuga Lake with a 12-minute commute to work along the lake. A potential brush with Parkinson’s disease proved to be mild “essential tremors” (the Katherine Hepburn Golden Pond thing). I did, however, convince the neurologist that I am a seriously twisted bastard.


“I fought the Fed, and the Fed won.”

Over my 40 years I’ve done pretty well despite painfully sitting out the most recent decade-long equity ‘roid rage hunkered down with gold (about 25%), laddered 2-year treasuries, and a TIAA fixed-income account paying out guaranteed 3.6% per annum. My house is too costly to not call an asset and will likely track inflation over the years when taxes and expenses are factored in.1 For me, investing is all about valuations and process. While many were selling in fear in ‘08–’09, I was buying way too timidly out of greed. I had joined the ranks of those who could not fathom that central banks would dump over $20 trillion into the system and acted on that disbelief while others rode the rip. Thousands saw the bubble and ensuing crisis in ‘08–’09, but nobody saw the interventions. The central banks clipped 5–10 years off a standard secular bear market and pulled markets off valuations that never dropped significantly below historical “fair value”. (Read that again: it is true.) I am pondering how not to repeat mistakes made in the next recession while not making even bigger ones when the Fed is shown to be impotent. I hope to buy stocks that act like real bonds—pay you to own them—because I don’t think capital gains from story stocks will be the game (see Japan).

Last year I spilled my guts providing 20 metrics showing equities were >2x over historical fair value.2 It’s only gotten worse, so go read it cause I am not gonna repeat it. What I will do is offer a plot that I created last year (Figure 3). Those blue lines represent blocks of time that the inflation-adjusted capital gains (ex-dividends, fees, taxes, and demographics) treaded water. It should scare the crap out of y’all because they are 40–75 years long. As the boomers become more and more late cycle and old enough to be carbon dated, their days of averaging into the markets are over. If you are fully invested at a secular top, your pain will follow you to the old folks home or to a van down by the river.

“Noah: How long can you tread water?”

~ God

Figure 3. Inflation-adjusted S&P capital gains. Blue arrows show time required to return to the previous secular peak for the last time (hopefully). (Chart without arrows came care of Ron Griess of The Chart Store.)

How’d I do in 2019? My clinical paranoia has largely kept me very light on equities. I missed the fake-meat bubble, and long discussions with Todd Harrison failed to get me into the pot stocks. For a while I felt stupid watching them run up 300%, but the jury started re-deliberating. (They gave it all back.) My biggest equity positions are tobacco, which disappointed in 2019 after their newly acquired vaping companies started killing people. Deja vu all over again. But here is an important point that will come in handy, maybe even profoundly important, in the future: those companies paid me huge dividends over the decades just to own them. There is a case for buying even more based on large cash flows, potentially rising dividends, and manageable debt,3 but the next big whoosh seems so close now. My faith-based pessimism means I’ll wait.

My large gold and much smaller silver positions went up 19% and 16%, respectively. Gold equities don’t interest me as levered proxies for the price of gold. I remain unconvinced they know how to generate cash flow. Fixed income returns were nominally positive but surely did not beat the real (uncooked) inflation. I am well aware that bond traders might try to scalp a trade, but low-net-worth investors should buy investments whose stated return is acceptable rather than fixed-income timeshares. That, for example, excludes 10- and 30-year treasuries in my world. I have routinely saved 20–30% of my gross salary every year but have formally started passing wealth along to the next generation. Preliminary estimates put my savings at 15% of my gross salary and overall wealth accrual at 5.7%, about 1.4 gross-salary multiples.


Almond-Eyed Aliens and Other Conspiracy Theories

“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.”

~ Albert Einstein

“The only thing dumber than believing in conspiracy theories is believing in none.”

~ Nassim Taleb

Every year I denounce those who use “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” pejoratively, but that Tweet hit a nerve.1 Chris Irons of Quoth the Raven pounced, and we did a three-hour podcast in which Chris dragged my sorry ass through every imaginable popular theory including 9/11—I’m a truther—to moon landings, false flags, and almond-eyed aliens.2 (If you were an alien who traveled across the galaxy would you make a crop circle, drill through some guy’s eyeballs, and then leave?) I listened to the interview twice and heard nothing deplorable, but something—probably the mention of the school shootings—triggered the YouTube Gestapo:

That was catnip for Chris. Out popped colorful headlines like…3

My dean must be proud. The funny part is that about a week later YouTube made some very public declarations:

“YouTube to delete thousands of accounts after it bans supremacists, conspiracy theorists, and other ‘harmful’ users.”

~ The Independent

“Without an open system, diverse and authentic voices have trouble breaking through.”

~ Susan Wojcicki, YouTube CEO inviting “offensive” content back onto the site

Don’t believe Wojcicki for a minute. YouTube’s newest rules turned the knob to 11 on the neo-Stalinist scale. The Supreme Court must align the Constitution with the digital world (before it becomes ruthless). Your honors: please stop fretting over baked cakes and revisit the interface of free speech and private corporations.

The whole affair inspired me to read Michael Shermer’s new book on the hows and whys of conspiracy theories and theorists (See “Books”)—a kind of penitence. To say my review is unflattering would be an understatement. That guy can suck my salty balls. Meanwhile, the FBI has declared “conspiracy theorists” to be “domestic terrorist threats”.4 I am way too old for Fertilizing the Tree of Liberty, but don’t push me.


“When the Trump tweet went out, I went from 93% invested to net flat, and bought a bunch of Treasuries… Gold’s not bad either”

~ Druckenmiller on Mexican trade war

”…mainstream commentators have made a point of dismissing anyone sympathetic to a gold standard as crankish or unqualified. But it is wholly legitimate, and entirely prudent, to question the infallibility of the Federal Reserve in calibrating the money supply to the needs of the economy….it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether this might be better assured by linking the supply of money and credit to gold…Central bankers, and their defenders, have proven less than omniscient.”

~ Judy Shelton, one of Trump’s possible appointments to the Federal Reserve

“I believe it would be both risk-reducing and return-enhancing to consider adding gold to one’s portfolio.”

~ Ray Dalio, Bridgewater Associates

“I maintain my call to hedge the equity risk in a portfolio with gold, since bondholders are most likely to be the victims of the next crisis.”

~ Charles Gave, founder of GaveKal

“The best trade is going to be gold…It has everything going for it in a world where rates are conceivably going to zero in the United States.”

~ Paul Tudor Jones, legendary hedge fund manager

“Here is the best thing about gold: It yields more than 11 trillion dollars’ worth of bonds. So, it’s a high yield asset.”

~ James Grant, before negative yielding bonds reached $17 trillion

“…it’s possible that we go into a recession. That would make one think that rates in the US go back toward the zero bound, and in the course of that situation, gold is going to scream.”

~ Paul Tudor Jones

“For the first time in my life, I bought gold because it is a good hedge. Supply is shrinking and that is going to have a positive impact on the price.”

~ Sam Zell, real estate mogul and the founder of Equity Group Investments

“If you want to ever own gold, the time to do it was last summer.”

~ Jeff Gundlach (@TruthGundlach), Doubline CEO

“…central banks to ease more aggressively, making gold an even more attractive asset to hold.”

~ Bill Dudley, former president of the New York Federal Reserve and ex-Goldman

If you wanna see the best bullish case for gold that I have ever seen, check out this talk by Grant Williams.1 Gold had a good but relatively uneventful year, sitting at $1250 this time last year and currently $1487 (+19%). Silver posted a more modest 16% gain (Figure 4). An 8-day winning streak was the longest since 2011. That was fun despite the end-of-year pullback. Given that the alternative hedges (bonds) offer little return and plenty of risk unless you are a dexterous bond trader rather than investor, there is underlying logic. In 1999 I swapped equities for a wad of gold and it has been a wild ride. As gold bugs often feel like dogs waiting for their owners to come home, JPM posted a chart of 20-year returns by asset class (Figure 5) reminding bugs to cheer up.2 If my eyes aren’t failing me, that asset in 2nd place is gold, beating the S&P by 2% compounded. Hmmm…that was the year I made the swap. Go figure. And, by the way, what the hell is that 1.9% return for the “average investor” at the very bottom. I’m not sure what that means, but it sure is troubling.

Figure 4. Gold and silver year-over-year performance in 2019.

Figure 5. JPM survey of 20-year returns by asset class. Note gold, S&P 500, and “Average Investor”.

RealVisionTV polled their guests on whether gold is “manipulated” and the consensus was “yes”. The CFTC settled with Merrill Lynch Commodities (MLCI) for $25 million to settle a multi-year scheme to rig trading on the COMEX.3 Whoa! $25 million? That’s impressive. A JPM guy was removed from the LBMA board because of his “racketeering” (RICO) indictment in the gold spoofing scandal—a “massive, multiyear scheme to manipulate the market for precious metals futures contracts and defraud market participants…thousands of episodes over an eight-year period.”4 Maybe they were involved in late-night monkey hammerings like this?

Two employees were put on leave while Jamie Dimon was not. Nothing ever happens. A prosecutor closed a five-year silver manipulation case abruptly. Five days later he was in private practice defending the JPM metals manipulators.5 Bart Chilton, the regulator most outspoken about metals manipulation, died. There is nothing nefarious here because, well, Bart never regulated anything.

During the last bullish run, we were bombarded with stories about tungsten bars and other gold frauds in what appeared to be an effort to scare Joe Sixpack out of buying gold. Comical efforts this year included hoopla over real gold with fake serial numbers.6 The horror. An altruistic John LaForge of Wells Fargo warned us that gold investments have “not been perfect” and that if you “flock to gold at the wrong time…it can be painful—possibly for years.”7 I’m waiting for their equity warning, but first they should warn us that millions of customers at Wells Fargo could get ripped off…again.

The geopolitical moves are somewhat confounding (Figure 6). Venezuela’s Maduro wanted his gold back from the Bank of England8 while the US positioned to grab Venezuela’s gold (along with all other assets not nailed down).9 Meanwhile, 20 tons that apparently were not nailed down were spirited away on a Russian-owned Boeing 777.10 China temporarily curbed its gold imports, which is a bit baffling given their relentless demand it for over a decade. It is blamed on the trade war but seems like an effort to stem capital flows during turbulent times. The 1999 Central Bank Gold Agreement signed ostensibly to stabilize the price of gold by limiting open market sales has lapsed.11 It is said to be the end of coordinated gold price suppression. Seems oddly coincidental with Mark Carney’s utterances about the end of the dollar reserve currency.12 Paris is said to be positioning to take a chunk of the bullion trade away from the London exchange.

Figure 6. Gold movements (acquisitions).

There are also some odd warnings to private investors. Italy may tax assets in safe deposit boxes.13 The low, low rate of only 15%—a sort of amnesty—was offered to those who fessed up voluntarily. The New York Times felt the urge to warn us that the 25 million safe deposit boxes in the US are not all that safe.14 In what they call a “legal gray zone” they note that you may not be reimbursed if your assets are stolen, destroyed, or mysteriously disappear. (There is nothing mysterious about banks ripping off assets.) They note that “customers rarely recover more than a small fraction of what they’ve lost”. I would lose my shit. KeyBank sent the following notice about safe deposit boxes noting that “you can no longer store bullion” after August 6, 2019 (Figure 7). And where was half of my physical gold? Excellent guess.

I own silver too in much smaller quantities but I can’t say anymore: Why?

“The only type of people who are crazier than yieldbugs are silverbugs, who are literally the most deranged people on earth.”

~ Joe Weisenthal (@TheStalwart), Editor at Bloomberg

Figure 7. KeyBank letter banning gold from safe deposit boxes (and other warnings).


“I think the internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government. The one thing that’s missing, but that will soon be developed, is a reliable e-cash.”

~ Professor Milton Friedman

“Anything that works in this world will become instantly systemic and will have to be subject to the highest standards of regulation.”

~ Mark Carney on Libra

“I believe that, in Libra, we have a sign of the zodiac which could potentially be a killer… for either Facebook or The Establishment’s monetary system. I wonder which way it’ll go?”

~ Grant Williams

Bitcoin ran from 3800 to over 13,000 before spending the rest of the year “digesting those gains” and settling in at 7200 (77%) at the time of this writing (but not ten minutes from now; Figure 8). I suspect that riots in every major city across the globe (but especially Hong Kong) sent electrons flying across the blockchain.

Figure 8. Price of bitcoin.

“If you’re not a billionaire in the next 10 years, it’s your own fault.”

~ 20-year-old bitcoin guru

There were a few humorous moments. Customers of a Canadian cryptocurrency exchange were unable to access $190 million of funds (life savings in some cases) after the company’s founder died and took the passwords.1 Well, he may not have died after all, but he appears to have taken everything with him wherever he went. This may not be that unusual; a poll shows 19% of crypto investors have been hacked and 15% experienced fraud.2 I’m not sure about the Venn diagram of those two groups. The Ireland-based crypto exchange, Bitsane, wandered off into the blockchain with deposits of a 250,000 depositors.3 (The name Bitsane was a hint.) A Congressman kept calling the “LIBOR” rate “Libra”, causing some to suspect kickbacks (but probably not paid in Bitcoin.)4

“The blockchain is real, you can have cryptodollars in yen and stuff like that.”

~ Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan

That is all just shenanigans compared to what the bankers do to steal your money, so it is hard to get too worked up over them. The risk, in my opinion, is when the banks and sovereign states (but I repeat myself) begin to sense a turf war. The IRS is starting to bear down on the hodlers, matching up tax returns with data from exchanges.5 Paying sales and capital gains taxes takes the fun out of buying a pizza. Elitists like Mark Carney, Mohammad El Erian, and Christine Lagarde have been chatting about a central importance of crytocurrencies.6 I suspect they do not intend to use somebody else’s, however. The dark interpretations include a move to cashless society and anticipation of a global reset, which is a euphemism for monetary Marxism and a replacement of the dollar as the reserve currency. A multinational, intergovernmental group representing 37 countries has recommended regulating digital currencies.7 The hodlers are shaking their fists defiantly…like the citizens of Hong Kong. You can keep your anonymity if you want, provided you give up your name, account number, and physical address. Speaking of which, Kyle Bass tells us that Bitcoin started its big downward trek when China clamped down on the hodlers to stem fleeing capital.8 Of course, we would never do that, would we?

“Stablecoins and other various new products currently being developed, including projects with global and potentially systemic footprint such as Libra, raise serious regulatory and systemic concerns…[we] cannot accept private companies issuing their own currencies without democratic control…It is out of question…It can’t and it must not happen.”

~ Bruno Le Maire, G7 finance ministers release

“Bitcoin is far from anonymous. It is more like digital bread crumbs.”

~ Kathryn Haun, US prosecutor who prosecuted the Silk Road

“We will not allow cryptocurrency to become the equivalent of secret numbered accounts.”

~ Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (@stevenmnuchin1)

The big news, however, was when the Mothership (Facebook) announced a consortium of civically minded robber barons were joining forces to create a new crypto currency, Libra, to revitalize the financial system.9 There is nothing that Lord Zuckerberg doesn’t wish to dominate. Libra appeared to be state sponsored at first blush when Mark Carney, head of the Bank of England, blathered on to the A-Holes at the J-Hole (Jackson Hole) about how we should replace the dollar as the reserve currency with one potentially tied to Facebook’s new “stablecoin” Libra,10 leaving open the idea that any “Synthetic Hegemonic Currency” would suffice. Dollar fans were not pleased.

“…we will wind up having quite high expectations from a safety and soundness and regulatory standpoint if they do decide to go forward with something.”

~ J-Po on Crypto

Jerome Powell (J-Po) sent a letter to several Congressman about risks of a private company creating a widely used cryptocurrency. The Fed has already implemented its own digital currency called “the dollar.” Meanwhile, Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal pulled out of Facebook’s crypto consortium after U.S. and European government officials provided an attitude adjustment.11 Senator Sherrod Brown of the banking committee noted that “We cannot allow Facebook to run a risky new cryptocurrency out of a Swiss bank account without oversight.” Even Maxine Waters released an unexpectedly cogent call to stop Facebook because of its previous bad behavior. Giving Facebook further access to personal data is beyond psychotic. I suspected that the pushback against Libra could be the beginning of a purge of the crypto community as a whole, but it hasn’t taken hold yet.

The Fed and Repo-madness

“There’s something happening here

But what it is ain’t exactly clear.”

~ Buffalo Springfield

“We have for the first time attempted a great economic experiment. Possibly one of the greatest in our history. By cooperation between government officials and the entire community….we have undertaken to stabilize economic forces, to mitigate the effects of the crash, and to shorten its destructive period. I believe I can say with assurance that our great undertaking has succeeded to a remarkable degree.”

~ Herbert Hoover, 1930

“The Fed put is dead”

~ David Tepper, Appaloosa Management

(1) The Setup. The Fed and its monetary policy lit a dumpster fire this year that is still just smoldering. The setup seemed simple enough. J-Po and the rest of the Fed governors (The Jets?) had begun swaffling the markets with rate hikes off the dreaded “zero bound” in late 2015 while simultaneously letting the Fed balance sheet begin to run off. Many developed acute sphincter cramps given that Fed tightening cycles invariably cause somebody’s skull to thwack the windshield, and we had never had to clean up after such a protracted monetary orgy with barnyard animals. (As homeowners are getting those low, low rates, Figure out who is picking up the tab for subsidized housing and you’ll know who is squealin’ like a pig.)

“Is it good or bad for families to save?”

~ Jerome Powell, Chair of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)

The sell-side squad always says it takes 1–2 years for Fed policy to take hold so just keep buying those dips. There was a chorus claiming that Fed funds rates soaring over 2% were way too tight. To that I say either there is no way we are in a sane world, or we have created a financial system that is so out of balance. Is there no point when we just ignore the leveraged crack heads jonesing for liquidity and generic equity investors who think that rising equity prices are in the Bill of Rights? I suspect, however, that history will be unfriendly to concurrent rate hikes and balance sheet run off. Lacy Hunt made a more nuanced argument by noting that the balance sheet runoff was an implicit 250–300 basis points of additional tightening and that the combined tightening may be way too fast. He is too smart to be wrong, but the Fed had been bloodletting savers for 10 years, and I wanted cold turkey. It is time to take a foot off savers’ throats, not to mention others (pensions, endowments, and even the banks) being damaged by their Mengelian experiments.

CBS News Pelley: “Where are we headed in this country in terms of income disparity?”

Powell: “Well, the Fed doesn’t have direct responsibility for these issues.”

The authorities assured us all would be well

“Three years ago the Committee came to the view that the best way to achieve

our mandate was to gradually move interest rates back to levels that are more normal in a healthy economy. Today we raised our target range for the short-term interest rates by another 1⁄4 percentage point.”

~ J-Po, December 2018

“It will be like watching paint dry...this will just be something that runs quietly in the background.”

~ Janet Yellen, former Chair of the FOMC

“I don’t believe we will see another crisis in our lifetime.”

~ Janet Yellen (2017)

“The really extremely accommodative low interest rates that we needed when the economy was quite weak, we don’t need those anymore. They’re not appropriate anymore.”

~ J-Po, October 2018

“Some asset prices are elevated but not extremely so.”

~ J-Po

“We don’t have any basis, or any evidence, for calling this a hot labor market.”

~ J-Po with 3.7% unemployment

(2) The panic and the Powell Put. The economy showed signs of faltering, which sane individuals would call the price paid to return to some semblance of normal. In the fall of 2018 markets were declining but not even into the rather arbitrary and idiotic 20% cyclical bear market definition. After 10 years of a monetary roid rage in which markets rose >300%, US GDP only rose 50%: they correlate in the long run. The correction had begun. The rivets weren’t even popping yet when Mnuchin audibly called a meeting of the Presidents Working Group on Capital—“The Plunge Protection Team.”1 Are you kidding me? Jussie Smollett took a worse beating. That was a market shart, but J-Po’s resolve had the life expectancy of a fruit fly. On January 4th, 2019, a day that will live on in infamy, Powell found himself on a stage with Bernanke and Yellen.2 Why would he do this? Whether speaking with premeditation (as Gundlach thinks) or extemporaneously, it happened:

“We’re listening carefully with sensitivity to the message that the markets are sending, and we’ll be taking those downside risks into account as we make policy going forward.”

~ Jerome Powell, inventing the Powell Put

That was it. That utterance introduced the “Powell Put” that David Tepper promised was gone. Powell had a hard-won credibility acquired for the transcendent achievement of not being Janet Yellen. He gave it all up when he wet his pants right on stage (monetary incontinence). It promptly chased the shorts out of the markets with a squirt gun and held the door for the chart monkeys to enter. The rally was aided by a suspiciously well-timed large equity bet by Norway’s sovereign wealth fund3 and who knows how many other co-conspirators in on The Sting. Following some wild gyrations, the markets charged into 2019 like somebody dropped a Mentos in a Coke.

The “precautionary principle” applied to central banking is “when in doubt, drop interest rates.” The Fed started by just trying to “edge” the markets higher, but soon it was a full monetary reach around (interest rate cuts) and monetary Ben Wa balls (the end of quantitative tightening). The Fed tried to downplay the cuts by calling them “insurance” policies. The global central banker meme became “We are gonna cut rates just in case.” Recall that in 2001 and 2007 the Fed cut by >500 basis points. These clowns only had 225 basis points between them and the dreaded zero bound—they had almost no ammo—yet started firing warning shots? Pundits with gravitas were happy to offer up some withering criticism:

“Three months ago the Fed predicted totally different policy than where they are now. How can they predict 2020 policy with a straight face?”

~ Jeff Gundlach (@TruthGundlach)

“Monetary policy is passive, can only be passive, and should be passive. The pronouncements of the Federal Reserve Board on monetary policy are a charade.”

~ Fischer Black, Nobel Prize winner for the Black-Scholes option pricing model

“The root cause of the financial crisis was a purely human factor. This human factor is the completely false sense of omnipotence, self-importance and entitlement among the country’s elite, as well as the nurturing of these beliefs at Ivy League colleges and other elite universities the US will be doomed to suffer other calamities every bit the equal of the financial crisis.”

~ Larry Summers (@LHSummers), former Secretary of the Treasury

“We fear that this dynamic could ultimately lead to “quantitative failure”…we see increasing evidence that monetary policy easing in this environment supports asset prices more than the real economy. This increases risks for asset prices bubbles, with the eventual adjustment leading to a worse economy—the Greenspan mistake.”

~ Bank of America

“The Federal Reserve is out of control…The basic problem with the Fed today is that it has gradually fashioned a new set of rules for itself…the Fed’s decision to use excess reserves and repurchase agreements to manage short-term interest rates amounts to the nationalization of heretofore private markets. Is this authorized by Congress? No it is not.”

~ Chris Whalen (@rcwhalen), Whalen Global Advisors

“If they make a mistake here, The Fed could be gone…”

~ Steve Liesman (@steveliesman), CNBC

“Extraordinary monetary policy has one function, and it is to amplify yield-seeking speculation when investors are inclined to speculate. That, and that alone, is how quantitative easing has impacted the economy in recent years.”

~ John Hussman (@hussmanjp), Founder of Hussman Funds

“He was hawkish in October, dovish in November, hawkish in December, and dovish in January.”

~ Danielle DiMartino-Booth (@DiMartinoBooth), CEO Quill Intelligence and former Dallas Fed advisor

“The Fed’s hilarious tightening / normalization “clown car” experiment (and ensuing credibility farce) is now complete.”

~ Charlie McElligott, Nomura Securities

“The central bank is playing with fire by actively seeking to depreciate the dollar, a currency that, whatever its current lofty status in the world, is a piece of paper of no defined value…the Federal Reserve should at least consider the appealing course of letting the market alone.”

~ James Grant (@GrantsPub), founder of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer

“The Fed’s balance sheet could swell to $10 TN during the next crisis. When the current bubble bursts, the Fed and global central bankers will see no alternative than to flood the global financial system with central bank Credit. This is a terrible, reprehensible prospect.”

~ Doug Noland, Credit Bubble Bulletin, elite credit analyst, ex-Federated Investors

“Central banks are committed to defying the business cycle…they are glorified bureaucrats with an academic sense of infallibility who believe they have a supreme power’s insight into the economy and markets. But yesterday marked a new low for world central bankers as the US Federal Open Market Committee completely threw in the towel….Monetary policy is dead.”

~ Steen Jacobsen (@Steen_Jakobsen), Chief Economist and CIO, Saxobank

“It’s all a propped-up shell game.”

~ Sven Henrich (@NorthmanTrader), Northman Trader

“Fed kept rates at 0 for 7 years, barely hiked after + QE to encourage levering up. Now [Fed governor] Robert Kaplan says high levels of corporate debt is why he DOESN’T want to hike.”

~ Peter Boockvar (@pboockvar), Chief Investment Officer of Bleakley Advisory Group

Is it the Fed’s job to sustain expansions and keep market dislocations at bay ad infinitum?…I don’t think it should. I don’t think the Fed’s job is to make sure there’s never a recession”

~ Howard Marks (@HowardMarksBook) Co-Chair & Co-Founder of Oaktree Capital

“Today’s monstrous attack on world order is a creation of the Fed’s own making…Central banks, led by the Fed, are destroying the global financial world order.”

~ Guy Haslemann, macro strategist and former head of rate strategy at Scotia Capital

“You don’t cut interest rates from 2 and a half with urgency because you’re feeling great about the economic future of a country…You do it when you’re alarmed and worried.”

~ Larry Summers (@LHSummers), 4/1/19

“Note to PhD economics students: the clearest path to the upper echelon of the Federal Reserve System is to formulate some crackpot theory justifying aggressive monetary stimulus.”

~ Doug Noland

“So the spineless Powell Fed went from slowly removing liquidity from soaring markets, full employment, and price stability, to pointing a fire hose of liquidity at the ‘glitch’ in the 3rd mandate – the Forever S&P Rally.”

~ Tony Greer (@TgMacro), ex-Goldman Sachs founder of TGMacro

“For the first time since the 1930s, a Federal Reserve tightening cycle got stopped out at 2.5 per cent on the federal-funds rate….We have a Fed chair who seems to change his mind constantly.”

~ David Rosenberg (@EconguyRosie), Chief Economist & Strategist, Gluskin-Sheff

“When the downturn does eventually come, cuts that were seen as needed ‘insurance’ at the time could be viewed in a different light. Policy space can’t be used twice.”

~ Tom Orlik (@TomOrlik), chief economist at Bloomberg Economics

“If central banks are, as is now fashionable to state, the only game in town, then the game is lost.”

~ Satyajit Das, Australian former banker/corporate treasurer, turned consultant/author.

“A decade ago, no one contemplated central banks purchasing more than $16 TN of government debt securities. Only a nutcase would have pondered ten years of near zero – or even negative – interest rates (and $10 TN of negative-yielding bonds). ‘Whatever it takes’ central banking? Crazy talk.”

~ Bill Dudley, Former President of the New York Federal Reserve, 2018

“This is insane.”

~ Kyle Bass (@jkylebass), founder of Hayman Capital

(3) Debt markets were metastasizing. Before we try to see where the Fed might be headed let’s see if we can figure out what happened. Unbeknownst to many the debt markets—specifically the really crappy leveraged loan markets—had frozen up for weeks in late 2018. Knowing “a rolling loan gathers no loss”, Powell needed them rolling again. Promises of the end of tightening came from all directions both subtly and explicitly:

“We are closely monitoring the implications of these developments for the U.S. economic outlook and, as always, we will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion, with a strong labor market and inflation near our symmetric 2 percent objective.”

~ J-Po

“It is worth noting that the last two business cycles did not end with high inflation. They ended with financial instability, so that’s something we need to also keep our eye on.”

~ J-Po

“Indeed, the fact that the two most recent U.S. recessions stemmed principally from financial imbalances, not high inflation, highlights the importance of closely monitoring financial conditions.”

~ J-Po

“At coming meetings, we will be finalizing our plans for ending the balance-sheet runoff and completing balance-sheet normalization.”

~ Loretta Mester, President of the Cleveland Fed

(4) There is something seriously askew in the repo markets. Banks keep reserves—liquid cash equivalents to back their loan portfolios—at levels set by statute. I’m old enough to remember when they minimized these reserves to maximize leverage. Post-crisis the Fed set interest on excess reserves (IOER) at a squat-like 25 basis points allowing the Fed to be dismissive of their impact. Over the last few years, however, the Fed quietly raised the IOER to be competitive with treasury rates.4 My arguably naive view is that the elevated rates served the dual purpose of providing an adequate reserve cushion for the next crisis while funding their no-banker-left-behind reliquifying program (free money).

“Simple supply and demand theory implies that when a rate such as the repo rate spikes, there can be three possible explanations: The demand for funds has suddenly increased; the supply of available funds has suddenly dried up; or a combination of both.”

~ Chris Whalen (@rcwhalen), Whalen Global Advisors

“The Committee is prepared to adjust any of the details for complete balance sheet adjustment normalization in light of economic and financial developments. Moreover, the Committee would be prepared to use its full range of tools, including altering the size and composition of its balance sheet if future economic conditions were to warrant a more accommodative monetary policy than can be achieved solely by reducing the federal funds rate”

~ Fed January announcement

The repo markets are rarely an issue to anybody but bankers. Every morning bankers determine how much liquidity they need to loan to the leveraged speculators (errata: their customers). On a typical morning, if bank A (or unregulated Shadow Bank A) has money and bank B needs money, Bank A lends to Bank B at low rates (2%-ish right now) and fluctuates very little. I assumed it was all computers, but I got a lengthy tutorial by a big gun at Citigroup (John Green) on how this is still done by phone. Seems barbaric. Back on September 16, 2018 the rate spiked (Figure 9). We are not talking a 50 basis point spike but rather to >9%. It appeared to be a run on the “shadow banking system”: nobody wanted to lend. If the models of how the system worked were valid, this is literally dozens of standard deviations.5 Ergo, the models are wrong, and we were witnessing an emergent system that is by no means understood.

Figure 9. Interest rate spikes in the repo market.

Superficially, banks were refusing to lend to other banks for even 24 hours, acting like little Galapagos Islands of liquidity. Banks needing liquidity (cash) were being sent to payday lenders. The Johnstown Fed scrambled out of bed and threw a shit-ton of liquidity (money) into the repo market for the first time in a decade. This was the needle in Uma’s chest in Kill Bill. Then it happened again…and again….and again. When your cardiologist says, “Oh shit. What was that? Oh Jesus. There it is again!” you are in trouble. The Fed was in full panic mode, furiously trying to swaddle the market in bubble wrap. In the “you break–you buy” school of monetary policy, it was time to buy. They started buying up treasuries, dumping $50–$100 billions of reserves into the repo market every day. With no pretense of honesty but some masterful word laundering J-Po assured us rather explicitly it was not quantitative easing—not QE or NQE (Figure 10).6

“I want to emphasize that growth of our balance sheet for reserve management purposes should in no way be confused with the large-scale asset purchase programs that we deployed after the financial crisis…in no sense is this QE…it’s not QE, did I mention that?”

~ J-Po

Figure 10. It’s not QE. (*Thanks to Janis Jermaks for help with this.)

To the extent that the injections roll into the markets in the morning and out at night, the Fed is correct; the Fed moves were said to inject a low, steady-state increase of money into the system. By contrast, real QE necessarily sticks around and accumulates as additional reserves are added and shows up as an expansion in the Fed’s balance sheet. So here is what Powell calls Not QE that sure looks like QE to me:

Figure 11. Fed balance sheet: Looks like QE. (Chart-crime busters should note non-zero origin.)

“Remember this is not QE4, as the Fed has repeatedly assured us. Tell that to the equity market…We have heard these Fed denials before…QE is totally discredited…the damage QE did in terms of wealth inequality compounded years of painful income inequality.”

~ Albert Edwards (@albertedwards99), Global Strategist Societe’ General

I dug hard looking for the proximate causes of the rate spikes and even put out an APB on Twitter. I found and got a ton of answers all accompanied by large dollops of confidence in their accuracy. I can now say with confidence that the disruptions in the repo market arose because:

  • A big bank was in trouble; Deutsche Bank would win you the most points on Family Feud.
  • An insurance company was in trouble.
  • Jamie Dimon was playing chicken with Powell to get looser policy.
  • The Fed couldn’t keep the Fed rate where they wanted it.
  • Overzealous banking regulation is a problem.
  • Massive release of debt from the US treasury had arrived.
  • There is a massive demand for Eurodollars (currency swaps).
  • The Fed was selling assets off their balance sheet (quantitative tightening) too quickly.
  • Japan and China were not buying our debt.
  • The shadow banking system was deleveraging.
  • Trump is a douche bag.
  • Banks front running real QE by buying treasuries got caught offsides.
  • Hedge funds were unwinding treasury-derivatives pair-trades.
  • Term premiums were at fault, although nobody seems to know what they really are.
  • The banks don’t actually have excess reserves to lend.
  • Banks were holding reserves owing to their strong liquidity. (That beauty is Powell’s.)
  • Gigantic carry trades were unwinding.
  • Elizabeth Warren is the demon seed.
  • Dollar shortages arose from overseas demand.
  • Zerohedge publishes ridiculous conspiracy theories.
  • The shadow banking system is finally collapsing.
  • There is an epidemic of vaginal itch within the Extinction Rebellion (vide infra).
  • The dollar was losing its reserve currency status.

“Now you understand why the Fed just doubled down on adding repo liquidity to the markets, but it may not work.”

~ Ralph Delguidice, The Institutional Risk Analyst

Ralph might—he is very bright—but nobody else has a clue. My initial thesis that I have not wavered from is that the banking system is a metastable emergent system that occasionally shits its thong for no reason within the imagination of participants (but always explained in retrospect).

“There’s evidence to support the consensus view that the Repo dislocation is “technical” and temporary/reversible. BUT this shouldn’t obfuscate the bigger issue: Liquidity risk has been systemically mis-priced/under-appreciated in a prolonged period of unusual central bank policies.”

~ Mohamed A. El-Erian (@elerianm), former co-head of Pimco

(5) Watch for the standing repo facility. In the spring of 2019, St. Louis Fed economists David Andolfatto and Jane Ihrig proposed the concept of a standing repo facility.7 David called it “a new program that could be another version of ‘quantitative easing’.” The FOMC wanted to operate a floor system with “minimally abundant” reserves.8 I don’t think this is an audible called by rogue economists but rather a razzle-dazzle play sent in from the sidelines by the head coach. The idea was that instead of banks sitting on nearly a $1.5 trillion dollars in excess reserves earning interest we should let the banks minimize their reserves with the promise that they can sell non-reserve assets (treasuries) to the Fed at will. That way they won’t hoard unused reserves. Andolfatto and Trig seem to believe that the banks would swap reserves (cash at the Fed) for conservative non-reserve assets like treasuries, which would also just happen to allow the Fed to shrink its balance sheet. At the start of the ‘07–’09 crisis banks were selling assets like crazy into the open markets (treasuries laced with horseshit) to get reserves while draining reserves of other banks. It was this asset fire sale that forced the Fed to become the buyer of last resort. By the Andolfatto-Trig model, the banks would be guaranteed asset sales to the Fed without having to wait for some announced program. It would be QE on demand. (Recall: stability breeds instability.)

“With this facility in place, banks should feel comfortable holding Treasuries to help accommodate stress scenarios instead of reserves.”

~ David Andolfatto and Jane Ihrig, Saint Louis Federal Reserve Economists

“To all my Swedish friends, I’m sorry for referring to the Riksbank as the Riskbank on my slide deck.”

~ David Andolfatto

They admitted it’s about a “money demand shock” (demand for money versus more speculative assets). I pissed David off a bit, however, when I Tweeted that it sounded like a scheme to leverage up the banks. This would happen if, say, the bank took $5 billion of excess reserves and simply levered up against them by lending 10x that amount ($50 billion) to leveraged speculators (customers). Remember, the reserves wouldn’t go away; they simply become, statutorily speaking, no longer excess. Meanwhile, the $50 billion lent into existence is now brand-new reserves in the system. It’s kind of magical: a QE program that is not controlled by the central bank but by the banks themselves. Powell openly stated, “I do not want to be weak on inflation.” As crazy as this sounds, in modern-era central banker language, this expresses fear about what he called “the risks posed by inflation shortfalls.” As Ben Hunt would say, the “cognitive dissonance between what the job requires and what any thinking human being observes must be crippling.” Of course, you will want to watch for the public relations campaign that precedes the Andoflatto-Trig model. Also, watch for a more extreme variant in which new legislation would establish treasuries as reserve assets, bypassing that messy liquidation part. That kind of regulatory forbearance (moving the goal posts) would expand the banking and shadow banking systems to Hindenberg-levels of scary.

“I think we would need to see a really significant move up in inflation that’s persistent before we even consider raising rates to address inflation concerns.”

~ Jerome Powell, 10/30/2019

“Powell was supposed to be different.”

~ Jeff Gundach (@TruthGundlach)

“Yeah. I fell for it too.”

~ Grant Williams (@ttmygh)

“They were the midwife to another crisis. There will be no deft, disingenuous shifting of blame to the commercial banks this time around. The Fed will carry the can.”

~ Albert Edwards (@albertedwards99), SocGen

(6) What’s next? There is no doubt that the Fed, if confronted with a severe crisis of their own doing, will continue to flail by flaying savers with methods that have been time-tested failures or new ones that have never been tested. They will never ponder the possibility that they are just wrong. The next crisis will bring in more QE and more pushes for unconventional monetary policies. They are already talking about it:

“Perhaps it is time to retire the term ‘unconventional’ when referring to tools that were used in the crisis. We know that tools like these are likely to be needed in some form in future ELB spells, which we hope will be rare.”

~ J-Po

Powell has also changed his language subtly, from “zero lower bound” to “effective lower bound”, many viewing this as a thinly veiled declaration that negative nominal rates are on the way. Is he unable to see that negative rates will mandate the consumer pull in their horns to save even more money for that rainy day? Fed governor Williams has been more explicitly supportive of NIRP. Some smart guys say the Fed’s balance sheet will soar over $10 trillion while the US sovereign debt (not including $240 trillion in unfunded liabilities) will double pronto.9

“It could be useful to be able to intervene directly in assets where the prices have a more direct link to spending decisions.”

~ Janet Yellen, former Chair of the FOMC

What about Yellen’s idea of buying other assets? It would take some legal changes from Congress, but Japan has been doing it for years (with little to show for it but the autoerotic asphyxiation of their bond market). The Swiss National Bank has been creating money from thin air and buying global equities including the FAANGs. What if every central bank started printing and buying other countries’ equities? It would be a war ending in globalized state capitalism.

We have strayed profoundly from honest price discovery and free market capitalism in the money markets. The Fed has completely lost its fear—maybe even its institutional understanding—of inflation. They haven’t always been this big for their britches. They didn’t always think they could control markets and the economy like King Canute. Words from a previous Fed governor not so long ago should be pondered by the current FOMC:10

“This is rather a ticklish subject for the Governor of a Federal Reserve Bank to discuss in public, so, therefore, I shall adhere very closely to some notes which I have prepared. It was believed that easier money might ameliorate those conditions.·The policy was effective in just those particulars which the Federal Reserve System had in mind when it was adopted. At the same time, it is undeniable that it served as an encouragement to speculation and no one foresaw the extent to which the speculative movement would reach…there has been an expansion of credit of about 8%, while at the same time there has been an expansion of production and distribution of only three or four per cent. This difference represents inflation. The best time to check inflation is during the period of its incipiency. The longer the postponement the more serious the inevitable result will be when inflation is checked…The Board has no disposition to assume authority to interfere with the loan practices of member banks so long as they do not involve the Federal Reserve banks. It has, however, a grave responsibility whenever there is evidence that member banks are maintaining speculative security loans with the aid of Federal Reserve credit… this sucking in of the country’s resources for use in gambling in stocks and bonds, without regard to the need for money in legitimate industry, is precisely the sort of thing the Federal Reserve Act was designed to prevent or at least to minimize.

~ Warren Harding, Governor, Boston Federal Reserve, March 19, 1929

(7) Further strange dealings at central banks. The Fed seems completely unmoored. That all central bankers openly sign off on the idiocy that inflation is good and high inflation may even be better is enough to send me to therapy. If nothing in politics occurs by chance then there was some seriously whacky stuff this year that makes me wonder if somebody started playing Jumanji again. The first is the op-ed in Bloomberg by Bill Dudley in which he appears to take leave of his senses:11

“There’s even an argument that the election itself falls within the Fed’s purview. After all, Trump’s reelection arguably presents a threat to the U.S. and global economy, to the Fed’s independence and its ability to achieve its employment and inflation objectives. If the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the best long-term economic outcome, then Fed officials should consider how their decisions will affect the political outcome in 2020.”

~ Bill Dudley, former President of the NY Fed until 2018

That wasn’t some utterance on stage. He wrote and edited that op-ed suggesting the Fed should meddle with the presidency. Larry Summers, reputed to never criticize insiders, did just that…

Bill Dudley’s @business op-ed might be the least responsible statement by a former financial official in decades.

~ Larry Summers (@LHSummers), former Secretary of the Treasury

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board chimed in with A serious WTF Op-Ed…12

“Wow. Talk about stripping the veil. These columns wondered if Mr. Dudley was politically motivated while he was at the Fed, favoring bond buying to finance Barack Obama ’s deficit spending, urging the Fed to intervene in markets to boost housing, and keeping interest rates low for as long as possible. And now here Mr. Dudley is confirming that he views the Fed as an agent of the Democratic Party….Urging his recent colleagues to act politically now will feed President Trump’s conviction that the central bankers have it in for him even if their monetary decisions are based on sound economic judgments. He will also damage the Fed’s ability to rally Congress and the business community to its defense. Perhaps Mr. Dudley is angling to become the next Fed Chair if Mr. Trump is defeated. But his partisan, reckless op-ed should disqualify him from any consideration.”

~ WSJ editorial Board response

Dudley was back peddling deep into the pocket with another Op-Ed but the receivers were covered:13

“The article is mine and mine alone. Fed officials were not involved in any way. There is no “deep state” or conspiracy that I am part of. Fed officials are not using me as a vehicle to signal their unhappiness with the president’s attacks on the central bank and on Chairman Powell….I wrote the article to express my concern that the president had placed the negative economic consequences of his trade war at the feet of the Fed, and that Fed officials had not pushed back against this more forcibly.”

~ Bill Dudley in a follow-up editorial

Bill; if anybody doubted the existence of the deep state—I didn’t—they sure don’t now.

The second oddity was a recurring meme peddled by global central bankers claiming their responsibility for mitigating the effects of global warming. Mark Carney, President of the Bank of England and another Goldman alum, went Full Monty:14

“As financial policymakers and prudential supervisors we cannot ignore the obvious physical risks before our eyes. Climate Change is a global problem, which requires global solutions, in which the whole financial sector has a central role to play…If some companies and industries fail to adjust to this new world, they will fail to exist.”

~ Mark Carney, President of the Bank of England

Even if you are seriously concerned about global warming—I am not—the crises won’t happen in their lifetimes, and it certainly has nothing to do with the appointed roles of central bankers as destroyers of currencies and suppressors of price discovery. They may be seeking scapegoats for their failures, more reasons to print money or push interest rates negative, justifications for the Davosians’ fatwah on cash, a more profound control over society, or all of the above.

And then Carney hit multiple third rails to the A-holes at the J-hole:15

“There are a host of fundamental issues that Libra must address…it is an open question whether such a new Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC) would be best provided by the public sector, perhaps through a network of central bank digital currencies…Even if the initial variants of the idea prove wanting, the concept is intriguing…An SHC could dampen the domineering influence of the US dollar on global trade.”

~ Mark Carney, President of the Bank of England

Waxing philosophically about the end of the dollar as the reserve currency behind closed doors would be one thing but in public? And to ponder the potential nemesis of sovereign currencies—cryptocurrencies—and more specifically Facebook’s Libra? Others, Powell for one, pushed back against Carney and the cryptos hard, but you’ve got to wonder what Carney was doing.

The last outburst that seems nuttier than squirrel shit came from Neel “The Mummy” Kashkari. Despite J-Po being unwilling to accept responsibility for the massive wealth inequalities (vide supra), Kashkari is pondering how to fix it. I fear what iatrogenic policies they might come up with to undo the damage:

“Monetary policy can play the kind of redistributing role once thought to be the preserve of elected officials.”

~ Neel Kashkari (@neelkashkari), President of the Minnesota Federal Reserve

Sounds like the Jonestown Fed.

Modern Monetary Theory

“Deficits don’t matter.”

~ Dick Cheney, Modern Monetary Theorist

Modern monetary theory is the newest renaissance of ancient economic thinking.1–12 It is a fringe group of economists pushing ideas about money and banking that have, without fail, failed throughout history. Of course, we are much smarter now and will try again with renewed confidence. I have been boning up trying to figure out what MMT means because, to quote a deeply thoughtful bloke:

“So yeah, you’re going to hear a lot more about Modern Monetary Theory. And you’re almost certainly going to get it.”

~ Ben Hunt (@EpsilonTheory)

You cannot miss the political winds blowing in the direction of MMT. Our current system has developed such deep-seated flaws that the populace is ready to give it all up hoping that they will get something better. The next election will witness rallying cries like “The banks got theirs now we’ll get ours” or, more simply stated, “free shit for everybody!” There are as many nouveau experts on MMT as nouveau experts on climate change. Certainly a chemist is unqualified to offer serious insights. What I can do, however, is shake off those low expectations and sense of self-loathing and take a swipe at pulling this plotline together.

1.  There is no shortage of detractors of MMT. Let’s start with a gander at what a gaggle of gurus think about it:

“A number of leading U.S. progressives, who may well be in power after the 2020 elections, advocate using the Fed’s balance sheet as a cash cow to fund expansive new social programs, especially in view of current low inflation and interest rates.”

~ Ken Rogoff (@krogoff), Economist, Harvard University, former IMF

“The MMT people aren’t really Keynesians. They’re a blend of Keynesian and Marxist.”

~ Cullen Roche (@cullenroche), Orcam Group and Pragmatic Capitalist blog

“MMT has constructed such a bizarre, illogical, convoluted way of thinking about macro that it’s almost impervious to attack.”

~ Scott Sumner, Bentley University economist

“That’s garbage. I’m a big believer that deficits do matter. I’m a big believer that deficits are going to be driving interest rates much higher, and it could drive them to an unsustainable level.”

~ Larry Fink, President of Blackrock

“The problem is that I don’t understand [Kelton’s] arguments at all. If she’s saying what I think she’s saying, it seems just obviously indefensible.”

~ Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman), 2008 Nobel Prize

“I have tried hard to understand what the $%&^$% [Wray] is talking about, but I have never succeeded.”

~ An Economics Department Chair on request for some help with MMT

“The idea that deficits don’t matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I think is just wrong.”

~ Jerome Powell, Chair of the FOMC

I believe that Modern Monetary Theory is naïve and that it would fail, but I do fear that it is like a seductive infomercial that makes hard-to-resist claims and may lead us down a fiscally destructive path. By the time we realize our mistake, it may be too late.

~ Convoy Investments

“We are going to end with the awareness of the non-sustainability of debt.”

~ Jeff Gundlach (@TruthGundlach), DoubleLine CEO and “The New Bond King”

“The general idea that government debt can be financed by central banks is a dangerous proposition. In the past, this has resulted in hyperinflation and economic turmoil. That’s why central banks are independent.”

~ The European Central Bank (@ecb)

“MMT, or some version of it, has been tried in several Latin American countries, including Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Peru, and Venezuela….All of these experiments led to runaway inflation, huge currency devaluations, and precipitous declines in real wages.”

~ Grant Williams (@ttmygh) equity strategist, hedge fund manager, blogger, and founder of RealVisionTV (@realvision)

“MMT is neither modern, monetary, nor a theory. It is a political narrative for use by central bankers and politicians alike…the cries of populists.”

~ Steen Jakobsen (@Steen_Jakobsen) Chief Economist and CIO, Saxo Bank

“We are all connected and these people behind MMT are idiots.”

~ Martin Armstrong (@ArmstrongEcon), Armstrong Economics

“MMT is a crackpot theory.”

~ Bill Dudley, former President of the New York Federal Reserve

“With all the talk about Modern Monetary Theory, we appear to be back in Santa Claus territory….the outcome of every historical example of massive monetary printing: a solvent state, a new class of nouveaux riches, and a wiped-out middle class.”

~ Charles Gave, founder of GaveKal Research

“The left’s embrace of modern monetary theory is a recipe for disaster…Contrary to the claims of modern monetary theorists, it is not true that governments can simply create new money to pay all liabilities coming due and avoid default. As the experience of any number of emerging markets demonstrates, past a certain point, this approach leads to hyperinflation.”

~ Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and President of Harvard

It is no surprise that MMT has accrued pejorative synonyms including Magical Money Tree, Mountain of Monetary Trouble, Modern Monetary Theocracy, and pretty much any anything that ends with a pejorative in the dictionary or urban dictionary starting with “T”. (I like my obscure allusion to Modern Monetary Turtles “all the way down.”) Before you rush to change the name to PMT (Post-modernist Monetary Theory) it would be untruthful to argue that the disgust is universal, and I have detracted more than one of those detractors. We begin with the major players:

  • Stephanie Kelton (@StephanieKelton), Professor of Economics at SUNY Stony Brook and Economic Advisor to Bernie Sanders campaign
  • Randall Wray, professor of Economics at Bard College and Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute.
  • Warren Mosler (@wbmosler), economist, hedge fund manager, and co-founder of the Center for Full Employment And Price Stability at University of Missouri-Kansas City.
  • Bill Mitchell (@billy_blog), professor of economics at the University of Newcastle, New South Wales and credit for the name “Monetary Monetary Theory”.
  • Scott Fullwiler (@stf18), associate professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute.
  • Rohan Grey (@rohangrey), Doctoral Fellow Cornell Law School.
  • Richard Werner (@scientificecon), university professor at De Montfort University and author of New Paradigm in Macroeconomics: Solving the Riddle of Japanese Macroeconomic Performance.

“The superstition that the budget must be balanced…is kept alive to fool the masses into behaving in a way that is required for civilized life.”

~ Paul Samuelson, 1970 Nobel Prize in Economics

Bernie Sanders’ former economic advisor, Stephanie Kelton, is the queen bee of the hive. She draws the most attention and requires the most careful analysis. Beyond this rogues’ gallery resides supporters and those resigned to the inevitability of an MMT–QE hybrid. Ray Dalio, founder of monster hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, thinks it is the only way out of our indebtedness.13 David Andolfatto, Vice President of the St. Louis Fed, seriously entertains the ideas underlying MMT.14 (MMT was the topic David and I were to discuss in the aborted podcast.) Others offering degrees of support include Paul McCulley,15 former head of Pimco, Kevin Muir,16 a prominent player from the Blog-‘O-Sphere, and Bloomberg’s Joe Weisenthal.17

“No one makes a billion dollars. You TAKE a billion dollars. You take it from your workers (Hi, Jeff, Jim, and Alice!). You plunder it from the environment (What up, Charles & David?). You strip it using patents/protections (Lookin’ at you, Bill.)”

~ Stephanie Kelton, Professor at SUNY Stonybrook, MMTer, and Bernie Sanders economic advisor

2.  Like any economic theory, MMT is based on premises that can sound good after a few beers.

“The deficit can be too small.”

~ Stephanie Kelton

Stating the guiding principles underlying the MMT movement is a little challenging for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that the MMTers are occasionally at cross purposes. Although some will be cringeworthy no matter how sanitized, I’ve tried to collate them without political comment as follows:1–12

  • A country whose debt is denominated in its own currency is, by definition, not at risk of an explicit default owing to its ability to create more money.
  • In the limit, governments do not necessarily have to borrow any money because they can issue zero-interest base money (create more money).
  • The Central bank would work in conjunction with the treasury, the former issuing credits on the ledger and the latter spending them. The control of the money supply shifts from the private banking system to the government. (According to Lacy Hunt it would require a rewrite of the Federal Reserve Act, but that is doable.)18
  • Trillions of dollars are lost by running our economies below potential (sub optimally).
  • Slack labor markets should prompt the federal government, by which they mean the Fed and Treasury, to issue currency necessary to engage the unemployed back to the workforce. This might be by building important infrastructure such as roads, schools, and bridges, preventing excess capacity from sitting fallow unnecessarily.
  • Deficits and debts don’t matter. They are false boogie men that are artifacts of the bank-centered debt-based monetary system. The constraints on government spending stem from the illusion that we cannot afford it. We are not leaving debts to our children and grandchildren, Social Security is not broken, and the trade deficit is not a problem.

“The government does not ‘need’ the ‘public’s money’ in order to spend; rather the public needs the ‘government’s money’ in order to pay taxes.

~ Randall Wray, professor of Economics at Bard College and Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute.

  • The government’s red ink is someone else’s black ink. Ergo, when the government creates money, they are also creating wealth.
  • The only limit on government spending is inflation.
  • Taxes, rather than serving as a source of revenue for the government, are used to control inflation (regulate aggregate demand) by sopping up the excess money. This is augmented by reduced government spending to avoid excessive and inflationary competition with the private sector for labor as well as includes things like tightening financial and credit regulations.
  • Government agencies would be given additional tools and authority to manage demand on a discretionary basis. Excessive demand could be curbed by tightening environmental and other regulations to “disemploy people”.
  • We do not need savings to provide funds for investment.
  • We are already doing these things to a major degree.

“The only potential risk with national debt increasing over time is inflation, and to the extent that you do not believe the US has a long-term inflation problem you should not believe the US has a long-term debt problem.”

~ Stephanie Kelton

3. MMT has a long history. Where do these ideas come from? Two founding documents of MMT (emphasis on “Modern”) include Wray’s book “Understanding Modern Money” and Kelton’s paper “Can Taxes and Bonds Finance Government Spending?”, both appearing in 1998. I, however, culled the ideas below from editorials, articles, blogs, and YouTubes.

The foundations of MMT go way back. One could argue that debasing the coinage in lieu of imposing taxes in ancient Rome was MMT. Colonists in Massachusetts printed their own script in lieu of taxation. John Law printed gobs of money in 18th France, which worked out brilliantly for the musket and guillotine businesses. The US printed “continentals” rather than tax colonists to pay for the Revolutionary War, eventually rendering them worthless. We then gave the veterans land, which was plentiful, and rather brilliantly established property rights that were foundational for the American Empire. In the early 20th century it was called “chartalism”.19 Weimar Germany printed German marks, supposedly actually thinking that the exponential and wildly inflationary demand for marks was evidence they should print more.

“The government can spend money into circulation…in 12th century England they figured out a way to issue money without taxation (talley sticks). This worked quite well [by the standards of the Dark Ages].

~ Richard Werner, MMTer and Professor at De Montfort University.

4. MMTers have been excellent at explaining modern banking for the masses. Before moving on to some gripes on a few of those cringeworthy tenets of MMT, I should note that one of the silver linings of the MMT debate is that it has been enlightening. Proponents of MMT have done yeoman’s work delineating the process by which money is created in the current system and how the banking system and central banks have no shortage of hucksters and frauds.1–11 Despite explicit statements by the Bank of England, 84% of British lawmakers don’t know that banks create money when they lend.20 The notion that you lend against existing reserves rather than lend the actual reserves is critical. Since you are allowed approximately a 10:1 leverage ratio,21 the tenfold increase in freshly created money finds its way into the reserves of other banks (the banking system), which now can serve as reserves and fuel the virtuous cycle of leverage, at least until the next credit contraction, economic crisis, and reset. When the Fed buys securities, they are not printing money. They are swapping non-reserve assets (Treasuries) for reserve assets (cash). Now the banks have more reserves to lend against, allowing the money multiplier to further leverage the banking system. Banks seek deposits not to lend to customers but to serve as reserves to lend against. The interest paid to the Fed is required by law to be returned to the Treasury, wherein they spend it. The system deleverages through loan repayment (which is why keeping us indebted is important) and through default (which is why keeping us solvent is important).“The rich command resources to have whimsical parties. These resources could have fed hungry children. Come on … what’s going on here?”~ private email from unnamed well-known Fed economist

5. MMT is profoundly statist. I had enormous piles of notes ready to be cobbled together to illustrate the underlying politics and statism of MMT, but MMTers Fullwiler, Grey, and Tankus wrote a manifesto that speaks for itself.22 I have necessarily done some culling and fixed a couple of comma errors but believe the spirit of the manifesto is not tainted or lost:

  • “The only limit on government spending is inflation.”
  • “If inflation is rising because large corporations have decided to use their pricing power to increase profit margins at the expense of the public, reducing demand may not be the most appropriate tool.”
  • “We need alternative tools in place to manage the power of big business and ensure their pricing policies are consistent with public purpose…Because of the pricing power of big companies, whichever administrative agency or agencies is responsible for managing aggregate demand should not be responsible for overall inflation on its own. It should either share joint responsibility for keeping inflation on target with other agencies responsible for regulating business pricing power or new price indices should be constructed that exclude concentrated markets where prices are clearly acyclical.”
  • “Taxes are a critical part of a whole suite of potential demand offsets, which also includes things like tightening financial and credit regulations to reduce bank lending, market finance, speculation and fraud.”
  • “Assessing the potential inflationary effect of new spending proposals also requires seriously assessing how underutilized our existing resources are. This requires detailed, expert analysis from a range of industry analysts…the fossil fuel, real estate, defense, and financial industries are too large, too dirty, and eat up too much of our national resources. They must be shrunk one way, or another. Thus, another way to offset excessive demand pressure is to tighten environmental and other forms of regulation, which would disemploy people and resources in those industries, and free them up to be redeployed in green production as part of the broader economic transformation of the Green New Deal.”
  • “The government can commit to real full employment. We can instead focus on increasing the quality of jobs and ensuring our economy generates prosperity for everyone.”
  • “The Green New Deal is about creating new resources over the medium term, which will in turn expand green output to further accelerate the decarbonization process.”
  • “Congressional Research Service (as well as other budget advisory organizations) will need to be enlarged to do the analysis necessary to find the right mix of inflation offsets that best move forward the task of decarbonizing our economy.”
  • “Demand management in general needs to lean much more heavily on the appearance of bottlenecks in specific industries instead of simply tracking changes in a general price index. The immediate signs of bottlenecks are large and sustained rises in unfilled orders for specific goods and services. Preventing shortages is after all what demand management is first and foremost about and price indices are misleading policy targets when they include factors that are insensitive to demand and would be counterproductive to manage with demand. The more actively we regulate big business for public purpose, the tighter the full employment we can achieve and the more resources we can devote to the Green New Deal while preserving price stability.”
  • “Varying tax rates and other inflation offsets should be included in the budgeting process from the outset. In our approach, an MMT-informed Congressional Budget Office would produce detailed reports of how specific spending or lending proposals would increase demand and which sectors and regions would be most affected, and would monitor inflationary pressures closely to determine the appropriate policy response based on specific conditions.”
  • “Our principal policy recommendation is a Job Guarantee (which is part of a Green New Deal), which automatically creates more jobs as people need them but does not continue to spend greater and greater amounts once the economy reaches full employment.”
  • “Other ways we can strengthen automatic stabilizers include savings policies and no longer indexing tax brackets or indexing them to an inflation target instead and introducing more tax brackets so that as incomes rise faster than the inflation target a higher percentage of income is progressively taxed. With these tools there is much less need to rely on day-to-day discretionary decision making like is currently the case with the Federal Reserve’s management of interest rates.”
  • “We are not against one or more agencies being given additional tools to collectively manage demand on a discretionary basis.”
  • To ensure the Green New Deal creates and maintains true full employment, we will need a new macroeconomic framework that brings in many currently excluded institutions and stakeholders.”
  • There are a number of taxes — especially on the rich — which offset much less GND spending than their dollar amounts would imply. This does not mean that we shouldn’t tax the rich — they are too rich.”

Wow. Just wow. They boiled up some funky chowder on that one. You cannot imagine the willpower I mustered to not add italics, bolding, and animated bright red lettering flashing at you. Let me summarize. They are going to use and dramatically expand the government to manage the subtleties of the economy including the growth rate, the quality and quantity of jobs, the supply-demand curve, savings, which industries to emphasize, inflation, and corporate profits, all while solving a perceived global warming crisis and making sure that nobody acquires more than the appropriate level of wealth. Big Digs, California high-speed rail systems, Bridges to Nowhere, and Cash for Clunkers will use temp workers who will then be “disemployed” when the economy is going well. This will all be overseen by a group of 535 legislators that includes the likes of AOC, Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Hank “The Guamster” Johnson. Meanwhile, that albeit imperfect control of the money supply by lenders and borrowers dickering over the price and quantities of loans will be replaced by centralized decisions exclusively at the Fed and Treasury with guidance by committees of luminaries. The role of the private sector or how it is supposed to function under such a regime is unclear to me.

“I reject the idea that MMT is about using taxes to fight inflation. That is a mischaracterization of everything we’ve written, but people say it all the time.”

~ Stephanie Kelton

“You don’t spend tax revenue; you burn it.”

~ Randall Wray

“The idea of depending on Congress to pass surplus-generating tax increases in order to keep the economy stable and prevent runaway inflation gives me hives.”

~ Josh Barro (@jbarro), financial columnist for New York Magazine

Despite public protestations by the MMTers that MMT is nuanced and complex, one can also glean from their screed that they really haven’t a clue how to control inflation. Government workers digging holes and refilling them is highly inflationary. Confusing money creation with wealth creation finds its roots in ancient Rome, made its way to modern Europe via a host of clowns not the least of which being John Law, arguably was the proximate cause of WWII, and embedded itself like an ear worm in contemporary South America and Africa. It seems self-evident that a government that prints money to run itself rather than collect taxes will be inflationary. Ergo, government is inherently inflationary, which reminds us to keep it small. Some will pretend that the deflationary gains stemming from economic growth will offset the inflationary forces of government spending, but it is still inflationary.

“Since I expect the US budget deficit to soar to 15% of GDP in the next recession, the ideas of MMT will surely become even more popular.”

~ Albert Edwards, on the SF Fed supporting negative rates

“The speed with which young activists on both left and right are migrating toward MMT is going to have a profound effect on US politics in the 2020s and 2030s.”

~ James Wilson, New York Times

As we head toward the next recession and the GFSE (Great Free-Shit Era), Oprah tells everybody to look under their seats, and disenfranchised voters head to the polls, I will remind you what Ben Hunt said…

“So yeah, you’re going to hear a lot more about Modern Monetary Theory. And you’re almost certainly going to get it.”

~ Ben Hunt (@EpsilonTheory)

Indeed, you will get it doggie style with rug burns on your face. David Hay and Grant Williams have stated their concerns about investing succinctly…

“Should something akin to MMT become a reality, it will be time for a massive portfolio reallocation.”

~ David Hay, Chief Investment Officer at Evergreen Gavekal

“MMT has all the markings of being a gold-bug’s dream come true—and a true nightmare for people living on fixed-incomes.”

~ Grant Williams (@ttmygh)

Stephanie Kelton, of course, would offer calming words to these chicken littles…

“The govt pays the tab rather than the rest of us…”

~ Stephanie Kelton, Professor at SUNY Stonybrook, MMTer, and Bernie Sanders economic advisor

At least now we know what that little blue check mark on Twitter is verifying. (That reminds me, the “bony-eared assfish”, Acanthonus armatus, has the smallest brain-to-body ratio of all known vertebrate.)

I give the final word to Ben Hunt’s brother…

“Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.”

~ Mike Hunt, National Lampoon

Share Buybacks

“Corporate managers had one job, and one job alone: to increase the short-term share price of the firm…. boards started firing CEOs who didn’t deliver near-term stock-price gains.”

~ Michael Hartnett, Bank of America

Volumes have been written on the subject. Goldman’s writeup is precisely what you would expect from a sell-side group with distinctly dubious leanings (sketchy and self-serving).1 Somebody at Credit Suisse wrote a remarkably coherent and balanced view,2 and Investopedia does a credible job.3 Confidants Jim O’Shaugnessy and Cliff Asness passed along their views,4,5 which I am in varying degrees of agreement with. My bud Cullen Roach notes that “firms that buy back shares tend to outperform or at least match the S&P 500 performance over the long-term” to which I would add “or vice versa.” Indeed, the top 100 share purchasers in the S&P “crushed the S&P.”6 Causality is debatable given the top performers have the cash flow to buyback shares. Fortuna Advisors looked five years out and found heavy buybacks were detrimental.7 These guys will all forget more than I will ever know (whatever that means), but I have unlimited audacity. I hope this is the last I write about buybacks, but I have been groping to get something off my chest in a way that Joe Sixpack (me) can understand. I do it with a case study but first a little more housekeeping.

“We share a set of potential pitfalls of share repurchases that merit further consideration as, unlike these four, they might not be mythical.”

~ Cliff Asness (@CliffordAsness), AQR Capital Management

Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders chimed in with a NY Times op-ed about the morality of buybacks, who should be in charge of telling corporations how to use their capital, and the overall evils of capitalism.8 Although they slipped up and made several valid points, those two could have massive strokes and only lose a couple financial IQ points. Let me offer my personal public service announcement.

“You know how you optimize shareholder value? Run the damned company well. Alternatively, financially engineer share price to the stratosphere at any cost, liquidate your options, and then run out the back-door sans claw backs.”

Investors are told by the media buybacks are great, yet the timings of announced share buybacks are reminiscent of announced stock splits engineered to juice the price (although not quite so ridiculous). HSBC, by example, announced mass layoffs and a $1 billion share buyback.9 This kind of paradox is not rare. (You can hear Schumer and Sanders howling over that one.) Stan Druckenmiller calls buybacks “financial engineering”, which is a generic assertion from a non-generic investor who compounded >30% annually over >30 years.10 It seems self-evident to me that buyback programs, in conjunction with automated purchases in passive market-cap weighted ETFs, can really get the speculative juices flowing. It should give us pause, however, that the South Seas Company, with financial support from the Bank of England, used debt-based share buybacks to juice their prices. Worked out well, eh?

“Whatever else you may think about stock buybacks, it’s quite likely that, but for them, the U.S. stock market today would be markedly lower.”

~ Wall Street Journal

“Buybacks don’t boost earnings per share. The widely believed notion that buybacks boost earnings per share by reducing the share count isn’t supported by the data S&P provides for the S&P 500 companies.”

~ Ed Yardeni, Yardeni Research

The quantity of these buybacks is monumental (approaching $1 trillion annually). Goldman’s Kostin noted, “without company buybacks, demand for shares would fall dramatically” and that “companies will likely continue to fund spending by drawing down cash balances and increasing leverage.”11 Stephanie Pomboy notes that corporate debt has risen $3.3 trillion over a multi-year period in which buybacks were $3.4 trillion.12 They may not be the same companies, but that is disturbing. As noted by Lance Roberts, “with 62% of investment grade debt maturing over the next five years, there are a lot of companies that are going to wish they didn’t buy back so much stock.”13 Their influence on markets may, once again, be revealed in the next recession when companies are issuing equity; it is not the first time they will have bought high and sold low. It is frequently claimed that the corporations are the only net buyers while everybody else is selling and supported with data as in Figure 12.14 Goldman stated as such:

“Buybacks remain the largest source of net demand for US equities. Other ownership categories have been generally reducing equity exposure, including mutual funds.”

~ David Kostin, Goldman Sachs

That claim, while common, baffles me because of an identity: if companies are net buyers then everybody else must collectively be net sellers. That is not to say, however, that the perpetual bids under the shares—perpetual until it stops—doesn’t do incalculable wonders for share price. (Yes, they are incalculable.)

Figure 12. Share buyers and sellers.

“One of the greatest misconceptions in the public discourse surrounding corporate buybacks is the belief that managements’ repurchase stock in an attempt to inflate earnings per share (EPS).”

~ Goldman Sachs report

Many have noted that snap-back rallies in individual stocks coincide with corporate share purchases, lending credence to assertions of market manipulation. Despite all this buying, market-wide corporate share counts are still rising, indicating these shares are finding a home in options holders’ pockets.15 I’ve seen claims to the contrary as well, FWIW. Who do you believe? There is little doubt, however, that buybacks are used to manipulate perception. On whether we should reverse the 1982 legalization of buybacks,16 I lean toward caveat emptor: “never give a sucker an even break.”

I am writing about buybacks again because phrases like “Share buybacks return cash to shareholders” are borderline delusional or good ‘ol fashioned scams, causing me to tip back in my chair and place my hands over my face. After a share buyback, try to buy a pizza with your returned capital. Of course, you can sell those shares but that is a taxable event and you are also no longer (or less of) a shareholder. (NB–India is taxing share buybacks to prevent companies from dodging a new dividend tax.17 Don’t tell Chuck and Bernie.)

“Firms have increased the buyback component of their cash return relative to dividends.”

~ Goldman, more fibbing

Hypothetical Company

To understand what is bugging me requires understanding what share buybacks do and do not achieve. At great personal risk of being declared Master of the Obvious because everybody knows this or Super Dolt because I got it wrong (or both), I will present a model using a hypothetic company I call CannibisBlockchainDatamonger.com (symbol: CBD). Let’s assume CBD is a viable entity with no debt and the following stats:

share count: 100 million
value of CBD business: $900 million
value of liquid assets: $100 million
net tangible assets: $1,000 million
debt: zero
net tangible assets per share: $10

In this analysis we make several assumptions:

  • Everything occurs simultaneously to neuter variables such as time, inflation, changes in earnings, and the business cycle. It’s a snapshot.
  • The valuation of $900 million for the business (assets and good will) is accurate or, in the very least, does not reprice without due cause.
  • Let’s assume the risk of having no liquid assets is tolerable; they can borrow if they must. All distributions are funded by these “liquid assets” because the all-too-common practice of using debt to buy back shares turns the company into a levered hedge fund.
  • We will assume the share buybacks extinguish the shares rather than use them to cancel executive stock options. Only by extinguishing them do you reduce the float. Of course, this assumption is fantasy, but investors don’t seem to care.

Let’s clear something up. Buybacks do not RETURN money to shareholders. A dividend does.

~ Lance Roberts

Case 1:

Management distributes its liquid assets—”returns capital to investors”—the old-fashioned way through $100 million in dividends.

After a one-time $100 million dividend payout…

share count: 100 million
value of business: $900 million
value of liquid assets: zero
net tangible assets: $900 million
debt: zero
net tangible assets per share: $9
share price: $9

For this snapshot, the shares are instantly overpriced at $10, but an efficient market will recognize the drop in the liquid assets instantly and use the antiquated concept of “price discovery” (arbitrage) and knock those shares down to $9 with due cause. This is easily witnessed in real life during special one-time large dividend payouts. Shareholders have $9 per share and $1 of cash per share. Enjoy the pizzas; that money is real. Until the future plays out, however, the asset swap is a wash for shareholders. Earnings per share have not changed provided earnings on the liquid assets were equal to earnings on the business. (To ignore the return of the liquid assets is a common and fundamental error.) There are losers, however. We are reminded incessantly that the dividend is taxable. More importantly, those with stock options saw their value drop markedly and got no cash payout. They also saw their bonuses vaporize because of the 10% share price drop. Is it any wonder upper management might be reluctant to be so generous to shareholders?

Case 2:

Imagine CBD buys back 10 million shares at $10/share to “return the capital to investors” in a highly liquid market in which the purchase does not move the price without due cause.

After $100 million buyback and extinction of highly liquid shares…

share count: 90 million shares
value of business: $900 million
value of liquid assets: $0
net tangible assets: $900 million
net tangible assets per share: $10
share price: $10

To the extent the share price still reflects the net tangible assets, the buyback didn’t and shouldn’t move the price nor the value underlying each share. You have 10% fewer net tangible assets and 10% fewer shares. What we have simply done is swap liquid assets for shares. One of the overlooked advantages of this asset swap is that share buybacks are more flexible than dividends. Try to find any CEO willing to reduce a dividend without fear of reprisal. Buybacks also allow you to own a more concentrated stake in the company. You may want to own CBD but not its $100 million portfolio of liquid assets. However, and this is a big however, the earnings per share in the future will go up if, and only if, the business has better returns than CBD’s portfolio of liquid assets. This has not always been the case. During the Nikkei bubble, companies focused more on their real estate holdings than their business because they appreciated so fast. In the highly inflationary 1970s, companies hoarded cash and were slow to write checks to counterparties because the returns in the money markets and other fixed income investments were as much as 8% above inflation. Of course, thanks to the Fed, liquid assets return almost nothing without taking severe risk. Ergo, the share buybacks of late funded by free cash flows are merely a reach for yield (and “more people have died reaching for yield than at the point of a gun.”)

Case 3:

Buying 10% of the float without pushing the price up is a stretch. Let’s drop that assumption about efficient markets and assume the large bid pushes the shares to, say, $14. Booyaa! Everybody wins, even the options holders! Although the rise will be unpredictably non-linear, we’ll keep it simple by assuming the company paid an average of $12 per share. At $12/share, $100 million bought 8.3 million shares, producing the following stats:

$100 million share buyback at an average of $12/share…

share count: 91.7 million shares
value of business: $900 million
value of liquid assets: $0
net tangible assets: $900 million
net tangible assets per share: $9.80
share price: $14

Investors got a 40% gain in their portfolio, so their new yachts are now visible on the horizon. Meanwhile, the net tangible assets underlying each share dropped 2% to $9.80/share. By chasing their own shares up in price the company has increased the froth—created higher valuations—and decreased the actual wealth underlying each share in the hands of existing investors. Let me say that again in case so the skimmers don’t miss it:

“By chasing their own shares up in price the company has increased the froth—created higher valuations—and decreased the actual wealth underlying each share in the hands of existing investors.”

How odd: investors feel richer based on share price but are actually poorer based on the decreased value (not price) of what they own. The company is also more shock sensitive: it is an implicit short-vol trade.18

To repeat, share buybacks are an asset swap of liquid assets for shares. If they chase shares up—whether causally or tacitly following the momentum (MOMO) crowd—the company’s stock is more highly valued (overvalued) while the underlying tangible assets decrease. For this to work out OK, the company’s underlying value has to appreciate >40% to clean out the froth. Forty years ago Peter Lynch noted that companies who buy back shares are good buys because the insiders must know they are undervalued. Do current share prices reflect such wisdom now? The twenty metrics in last year’s annual survey showing the markets are 2x overvalued19 suggest maybe companies should be doing the reverse—issuing overpriced shares for liquid assets. But, of course, that is not what the Fed nor the executives want. My advice is to beware of any analysis that forgets to mention the return on liquid assets and run from companies who have large share buybacks and weak or weakening balance sheets. The alternative advice, which really is not a viable option for many, comes from the computer in War Games:

“A strange game…the only winning move is not to play.”

Climate Change

“I had dinner with Obama’s Secretary of Energy on Saturday night (Steven Chu). He said there are no credible scientists who doubt global warming: none.”

~ Collum email, 9/11/16

“I know things that 1000/1000 PhD chemists would assure me are true that are wrong. For this reason, I am agnostic on global warming.”

~ Collum email, 2017

“[Climate change is] too complex a problem for me to dedicate enough bandwidth so as to formulate a strong opinion. My colleagues in the sciences that I ask all seem to believe it, but I am not sure how relevant that data is.”

~ Collum email, 2/12/17

“If I had to bet a paycheck, I would bet anthropogenic global warming is real. If I had to bet ten paychecks, I would bet that we are going to do the experiment despite the best intentions of those who worry.”

~ David Collum, 2018 Year in Review

I noted in last year’s YIR that I had not done my 10,000 hours of homework needed to form an educated opinion and merely criticized my scientific peers who seem unconstrained by such ignorance. However, the debate is less lopsided than the popular press portrays with countless credible scientists who have not answered the siren call to save the world from hominids. With prods from friends and family to “do the right thing,” I finally dove into this plot, and, while I am not done with my readings, I’m less agnostic.

“My god, you’re a total disgrace to Science. A whiny, doctrinaire little man with libertarian leanings. Please “back away” from the debate and refrain from winging about it on podcasts. Your involvement is toxic.”

~ Gerry Mueller, professional Collum emailer

Jeepers Gerry: If you can’t be kind, at least have the decency to be vague. There are a few facts and concepts that are uncontentious and possibly agreed upon by those who believe climate change is a problem—‘changers’—and those who question significant portions of that story—’deniers’. (Many deniers will be irritated by my binary categorization.) Sucking carbon-sequestered fossil fuels from the ground and burning them will, necessarily, alter the CO2 cycle. The climate is always changing and sea levels rise and fall, but both appear to be on the rise to varying degrees and depending on the time frame (20 versus 20,000 years). Humans have also been beating the crap out of the flora and fauna ever since we formed our first mobs and satisfied our Quest for Fire. Critters in our way adapted or died. This blue orb of ours has finite resources, and, as physicist Albert Bartlett would say,…

“’Sustainable growth’ is an oxymoron”

~ Albert Bartlett, UC–Berkeley physicist

We can consume finite resources for a while, but our inability to understand the simple math of the exponential function is a problem. Vast resource depletion and ubiquitous plastics and micro-plastics in the environment are deeply disturbing; generic pollution is less troubling. If we learned anything from the Gulf oil spill and Iraq oil fires, Earth is adaptable. I fully support technological advancements (Facebook aside) and think environmental and energy needs could drive the Mother of Technological Revolutions (MTR).

“The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

~ Thomas Huxley

There is a natural asymmetry to the climate debate: it is far easier to weed whack theories with an “ugly fact” than to develop them. The debate, however, is about distinguishing Nature’s Wrath from “negative externalities” of the human existence. How much environmental damage should we tolerate to fully enjoy the benefits of human ingenuity? At what point must we clean up our act? However, many try to smuggle pollution and depletion arguments into the climate debate. It is this debate that seems to be lacking guard rails and may be careening off a cliff. It is exacerbated by the fact that we all seem to have personal tipping points beyond which it would take devine intervention to change our minds. I confess that I am close to that tipping point. I’ve crossed paths with many changers who are now deniers; I am unfamiliar with the reverse. The problem is that nobody fully understands the interactions of the geologic, meteorological, solar, atmospheric, chemical, oceanographic, and biologic systems well enough to comprehend their ramifications. Here is one maxim I am positive is true:

“Nobody on the planet—not one person—knows what will happen to the World’s climate and ecosystem 50 years from now. We are all guessing, some more than others.”

~ Me

I am addressing those who still have a chance of finding the buried bodies in the climate crisis debate. The 26 so-called “maxims” listed below should not be construed as “general truths” but rather conversation starters. Preface everything I say with an implicit “supposedly”, “it is said that,” or “according to some guy on the internet.” Politics has invaded the debate so profoundly that truly unequivocal assertions are now on the endangered theses list. I can assure you that every single statement I make casting aspersions on the narrative has been attacked (debunked). Not one criticism goes uncontested. None.

“I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the craziness in the field of climate science.”

~ Judith Curry, former chair of Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology

(1) Sincere climate scientists deserve our sympathy. The serious ones are trying to get it right despite being surrounded by a cacophony of intellectual goulash. Stepping out of line—contesting any aspect of the climate change story—risks serious pain and suffering. Science has become a political football. Signing off on climate change immunizes you from criticism, but tripwires are everywhere. Science is hard enough to get right under the best of circumstances, let alone when barraged with conflicts. I doubt I could negotiate these waters.

“Every five years the UN-based International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes a ‘consensus of the world’s top scientists’ on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. The claim that the IPCC has the world’s top 1500 or 2500 scientists is simply not true.”

~ Paul Reiter, Professor of Medical Entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, contributor to the third IPCC Working Group II, employee of the Center for Disease Control for 22 years.

The IPCC, the UN-based International Panel on Climate Change, is an inherently political organization staffed by people with wildly different backgrounds.1 (Let us not forget that U.N. Human Rights Council members include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Qatar, Egypt, and Cuba. And joining in 2020 we have China, Venezuela, Mauritania, Sudan, and Libya.) The IPCC was founded to study global warming not just the climate. It has separate scientific and policy study groups.2 According to a recent Forbes article, “Climate scientists are starting to push back against exaggerations by activists, journalists, and other scientists.” I guess there is hope of regaining our balance.

“It’s shocking to hear someone with your education espouse climate denial. You really should be ashamed.”

~ Gerry Mueller, toxic emailer again

“If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness.”

~ legal aphorism

“Climate experts have been attacked by these people, and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists; they make threats…The IPCC reports have been read in a similar way to the Bible: you try to find certain pieces or sections from which you try to justify your extreme views. This resembles religious extremism.”

~ Petteri Taalas, Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

(2) Credible scientists and thoughtful individuals who doubt popular narratives are in the minority. The changers have countless organizations set up to defend the authenticity of their cause. We’ll cover the magnitudes on that below. By contrast, the openly skeptical deniers are more of a rag-tag bunch of individualists who are largely free-balling it. You can find lists—or should I say blacklists—to humiliate them.3 Through a judicious choice of quotes and affiliations in the shadowed boxes, however, I have tried to underscore that many have serious chops. I urge you to pay attention to the quotes and the credentials.

“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

~ Richard Feynman, winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics (and one of the greats on that scale)

”Consensus science is not science. Consensus science is politics.”

~ Michael Crichton, best-selling science-fiction author and denier, RIP

(3) Consensus means jack squat. “We declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.”4 Really? Unequivocally? If this is really what they signed verbatim, we have located 11,000 scientifically trained nitwits. Here are just a few equivocators:

  • The Global Warming Petition Project rounded up over 31,000 scientists (9,000 with PhDs) equivocating that the panic over climate change is bullshit. Worldwide there are 21 million degrees in science, from bachelor degrees to PhDs, blurring what “scientist” means in these petitions.5
  • A letter sent by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts, all with PhDs in tow, urged NASA to dial back their support of the global warming narrative.6
  • A letter authored by 500 carefully vetted scientists—big swinging dicks and ovaries of steel—urged the UN to acknowledge there is no climate crisis.7
  • In 2015, 30 Nobel laureates got huge media attention by signing a letter asking for immediate action on climate change while it went unnoticed that 35 other Nobel laureates sitting in the room did not sign.8

The most popular of all statistics declares that “97% of climate scientists believe anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a significant problem.” A colleague and climate change activist at Cornell recently claimed in a debate at Cornell, “that 97% number is not even debatable.” He’s right; it’s complete garbage. Over 11,000 abstracts from papers supposedly on climate change were culled down to 79 papers, of which 77 said climate change was a problem.9 The one chard of truth: 77 of 79 is about 97%. Here is a nice critique of an assortment of polls.10

“The time for debate has ended….The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.”

~ Marcia McNutt, the editor of Science magazine

(4) Science is never settled. No disrespect intended, but any scientist who claims that climate science is settled is an idiot. The notion of “settled science” is merely a rallying cry used by catastrophists to shut down debate and get governments to yank out their checkbooks. Physicists of the late 19th century were confident that they had it right, too, until Einstein proved them wrong. Opinions are like butts; everybody has one.

“The vast majority of the climate models the IPCC uses as the basis for its predictions have repeatedly incorrectly forecast higher temperatures. According to an analysis by the Cato Institute, 105 of the 108 models predicted a higher surface temperature for the period between 1998 and 2014 than the temperature actually recorded.”

~ Petteri Taalas, Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

“The climate system is a coupled non-linear system and, therefore, long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

~ IPCC report, 2001, that was subsequently purged because…?

“The models were tuned, should we say… they are all parametrized…if I translate parametrized into English: fudged….we forced the models to include human influence.”

~ Patrick Michaels, former professor of Climatology at University of Virginia, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, president of American Association of State Climatologists, and co-author of 2007 report of the International Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

(5) Beware of models and models of models. Cancer researcher Howard Skipper noted, “A model is a lie that helps you see the truth.” Not only that, many climate models are built on precarious foundations also derived from models. Models that include the presumption of a CO2-temperature causal relationship are a problem. What if that presumption is wrong? From my read, climate scientists (or at least activists) use the process of elimination. After modeling all known variables, left-over effects are attributed to human activities. “What else could it be?” I get that rhetorical question from chemistry students with some frequency. I invariably respond, “All the things you are too ignorant or too stupid to understand or ponder.”

There are compendia of predicted calamitous climate change events that failed miserably:11 droughts, flooding, famine, pestilence, plague, ice ages, and epidemics of kidney stones.12 One astute scientist was early to conclude the arctic ice was melting so rapidly, it would soon be ice-free. That was in 1814.13 Of course climatic predictions often fail. It happens in all disciplines of science. More disturbingly, these seriously colossal failures do not seem to have made the climate modelers (or, to be fair, their activist spokespersons) any more circumspect.

Figure 13. Failed predictions in the media (left) and relative to measured reality (right)

“The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.”

~ Patrick Frank, physicist Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University

Patrick Frank, a Stanford physicist with limited experience in climate science but serious chops in statistics and error propagation, had noted that climate change projections often lack error bars. He offers some arcane details of error propagation and then hits us with this gem: if you take the errors on current climate readings and propagate them out to the popular target year 2100, the projected global temperature rise has an error bar of +/- 15 °C.14 That’s considerably larger than the actual projected single-digit increases. Curiously, intellectual challenges to Patrick’s methods came from physicist and an A-list climate scientist and denier, Roy Spencer. Roy was the Principle Investigator of NASA’s satellite-based temperature monitoring program that found no warming over the few decades of its existence.15 In any case, a heated debate (a bar fight) broke out.16 It looked to me like Patrick Frank won. If so, his argument destroys the most polarizing temperature projections.

“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data.”

~ Mototaka Nakamura, International Pacific Research Center School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii

“The computer models are predicting seven times more warming than is being observed.”

~ Patrick Michaels, former professor of Climatology at University of Virginia, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, president of American Association of State Climatologists, and co-author of 2007 report of the International Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

(6) Beware of temperature measurements, especially those that form hockey sticks. Accurate temperature measurements rely on both the quality of the thermometers and their placement. Both changed over the last 100 years. How could they not? The fixed monitoring stations are by definition more influenced by humans now than 100 years ago. Some started life in open spaces and are now proximate to shopping malls inadvertently recording what is called the “urban heat island effect”.17 They show warming. Go figure. Others have been relocated. Corrections for that have been made. Right. There is mounting evidence that somehow the corrections end up reducing the temperatures retrospectively, providing the sought-after positive slope.18 To repeat, Roy Spencer reports that NASA satellites haven’t registered any temperature changes in the upper atmosphere;19 this appears to be an awkward talking point for the warming crowd. Figure 13 shows how 102 IPCC-sanctioned models diverged from reality.

“Do I expect you to publicly denounce the hockey stick as obvious drivel? Well, yes.”

~ Jonathan Jones, Professor of Atomic and Laser Physics, University of Oxford

What about climate scientist Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick, the one that formed the centerpiece of Al Gore’s road show?20 It has been debunked with prejudice. Mann was accused of stitching together two very different data sets, causing both the discontinuity and the slope in Figure 14.20 He massively over weighted tree-ring data from a single stand of bristlecone pine trees in California to create the NHL-ready hockey stick and attain his goals.21 A hacker unleashed a cache of 2,000 emails, which revealed skullduggery and launched “Climate-gate”.22 The emails showed that the IPCC was in cahoots with Mann to make the temperatures match their models and mental constructs. One of Mann’s peers, Keith Briffa came to the opposite conclusion. Mann et al. decided Briffa’s data risked “diluting the message…a potential distraction/detraction” and found a way to correct Briffa’s lapse in judgement. It is a colossal black-eye for climate science. Ironically, in 2019—the Year of the Whistleblower—the email hacker remains anonymous.

Figure 14. Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick

“Better that nothing appear than something unacceptable to us…Excuse me while I puke.”

~ Ray Bradley, a coauthor of the Mann’s hockey stick article, on Mann’s hyperbole and overreach

Mann is what my mom would call “a piece of work”. On several occasions Mann mentioned his Nobel Peace Prize, referring to the award the IPCC 200-member organization shared with Al Gore. He was on roll when he became Time Magazine’s Person of the Year:

Figure 15. Michael Mann’s Nobel Price and his Person of the Year award.

Statistical analyses by statistician Steve McIntyre and others snapped that hockey stick right over their knees as part of Climate-gate.22,23,24 Mann has been called the “Jerry Sandusky” or “Joe McCarthy” of climate change. I would say “Wayne Gretzky” because he took his data to where the conclusion would be. Others using rational models and valid data failed to replicate the hockey stick. Using Mann’s model with any random data produces a hockey stick. Oops. In an attempt to silence critics, Mikey sued journalist Mark Steyn and climate scientist Tim Ball for libel. Steyn’s public criticisms are hysterically unfiltered.25 While the Steyn case is still in the courts, a recent decision in the Tim Ball suit declared that Mann failed to present evidence of his model’s validity during the course of an eight-year trial.26 Mann declared he did not need to provide the evidence. The court ruled he was in contempt and responsible for Tim Ball’s considerable legal fees.

“Did Mann et al. get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al. got it wrong.”

~ Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh

In the wake of Mann’s humiliating defeat, the hockey stick has been decommissioned and placed in the archives of flawed science. Just kidding. Activists, including the IPCC, still use it to scare people. The IPCC guys should know better. After all, they all have Nobel Prizes.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

~ H.L. Mencken

(7) The boundaries between propaganda and lying are fuzzy. While climate-gate and the hockey stick are low-water marks in the climatic swamp, there are other unmentionables slithering in the muck. Avid deniers like Steve S. Goddard (a.k.a. Tony Heller) and Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore show how easily cherry-picked statistics can morph into fraudulent conclusions as seen in these videos.27,28 Goddard brings dollops of snot as he emphasizes outright fraud.28 I would simply point out that conclusions depend on the referenced starting date as illustrated in the following three examples:

Global temperatures over 20 years…

Global temperatures over 140 years…

Global temperatures over 10,000 years…

Here is a simple example of some high falutin’ hooey that I stumbled into during a spat with a climate activist professing to be a scientist. I was prompted to check out a definitive report on the impact of global warming on the Southwestern US and quickly glommed on to Figure 16 (left) showing acreage burned.29 I told her it looked fabricated. It takes a special kind of delusion to think you can deconvolute human-derived climate effects, natural environmental effects, and the countless other demographic and land management changes occurring in the region (like 6 million people moving into California over the last few decades).30 Also, using cumulative effects is dubious because they always go from lower left to upper right. (Imagine how bleak the world would look if you plotted the cumulative deaths from cancer over the last century.) With serious swagger and ‘tude she suggested I read the primary literature, so I did. The original paper was models upon models using data from models. The authors knew it; they were just doing their day jobs. Then I noticed the fib: the report had removed the word “modelled” from the y-axis. That’s a curious typo, wouldn’t ya say? Now, for laughs, look at the burn acreage in the US measured over the 20th century and presented annualized.31 You can see the slope there too but you get a different impression. I suspect the data from the Southwest would look similar if they had gone pre-1985…but they didn’t.

Figure 16. Burn acreage in the Southwest over 30 years and in the US over 90 years

Many use tree ring data as a proxy for global warming. Bristlecone pine tree experts, of which I consider myself one having written a five-page B freshman term paper on them in 1973, say the tree ring densities reflect a composite of stresses on the pines…in specific locations…during the summers…during the day. Temperature is just one variable. An email from climate scientist and IPCC contributor Tom Wigley to Michael Mann noted that Wigley’s son doing a science fair project found tree rings to be more sensitive to moisture than temperature. A high school kid debunked the hockey stick and the use of tree ring data to measure temperature.

Of course, the media runs with the most interesting narratives and then sensationalizes them. One sleuth rounded up all the headlines claiming that global warming would be twice as bad in their region.32 These unfortunate regions include Canada, Russia, Arctic, Norway, Finland, South Africa, China, all of Africa, Tibet, “The Mountains”, Alaska, Japan, Korea, Iceland, Britain, Adirondacks, Spain, Australia, Himalayas, Singapore, and Lake Wobegon. I also suggest you beware of a common gimmick of using lots of red on temperature maps. You can make those reds look so bright you need sunscreen. Damn! That looks hot!

“Vintners in France haven’t seen such a succession of hot weather and dry harvest since the 14th century, during a time called “the Black Death.”

~ Bloomberg news, inadvertently noting it was hot 600 years ago

(8) The world has been warmer in the past. I am not talking eons but merely centuries. Vikings grew barley in Greenland 1,000 years ago.33 The nasty glitch in the catastrophe storyline is that the world was hotter during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from 950 – 1250 AD.34 Glaciers are melting as they tend to do. The receding Mendenhall glacier in Alaska revealed tree stumps from 1,000 to 1,200 years ago.35 They must have grown there 1200 years ago, right? Mediterranean grapes were cultivated throughout Great Britain.36 The MWP is one of the bogies that Mann et al. got caught trying to eradicate from the data in Climate-gate. Changers also fear the Black Death will emerge from thawing arctic graves,37 ignoring the efficacy of modern antibiotics and the fact that they must have been buried in warmer times.

“People are complaining about the weather. Why don’t they fix it?”

~ Old Joke

(9) There is no optimal global temperature. The warm period 7,000 to 5,000 years ago witnessed ancient Egypt and Greece prospering.38 Flourishing civilizations developed during the Roman Warm Period (RWP) from 250 BC to 400 AD.39 The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from 950 – 1250 AD saw the resurgence of civilization and ushered in the beginnings of the Renaissance. In contrast, the 18th century cooling period, The Little Ice Age, brought in famines and death.40 Given the choice of feast or famine, I’ll take feast every time.

“Tripling CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere will be a major benefit to life on Earth.”

~ Will Happer, Physicist at Princeton and former director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science

(10) The correlation and causality of the relationship between CO2 and temperature are nuanced. Look at the stacked plots in Figure 17. That is a serious correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature, and that little arrow showing today is supposed to scare the bejeesus out of you. What you cannot see is the statistically significant 800-year lag of CO­2 concentrations behind the temperature movements.41 We’ve got causality backwards: higher temperatures are causing more CO2. Why? As oceans warm they release CO2. It’s called “degassing” and you learn about it in freshman chemistry (or so I’m told).

Figure 17. CO2 (top) and temperature (bottom) over the last 800,000 years.

Meanwhile, the dreaded greenhouse gas effect of CO2 has a non-linear (logarithmic) relationship: the more CO2 you pump into the atmosphere, the less effect it has. Princeton physicist William Happer says we are close to the point of maximum influence—saturation.42 It is one of the countless poorly understood (and often ignored) feedback loops that render the climate-change debate complex.

[That] “CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison…will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world.”

~ Richard Lindzen, MIT physicist, and former head of the National Academy of Sciences

(11) CO2 is plant food. Let’s bullet this idea:

  • The pre-industrial CO2 of 280 PPM is now up to 400 PPM.43
  • Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore notes that at 280 ppm we were nearly carbon starved compared with prior ages. Even 400 ppm is starved by historical standards.42
  • Greenhouses crank CO2 levels to >1500 ppm to promote growth.44
  • The CO2 content in a Nebraska cornfield at high noon is 50% lower than at night as the corn gobbles it up.45
  • Nobel Prize winning physicist, Ivar Giaever, submits that the CO2 spewed into the global atmosphere by all the cars in the world is equivalent to sitting in a 20x20x8 room lighting one match every three years.46
  • There has been a demonstrable greening of the planet during the past 30 years, an area two times the continental US.47 Al Gore forgot to mention this.
  • CO2 suppresses excess moisture loss in plants by closing pores, aiding in drought resistance.48
  • Nobody knows the optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but plants love the stuff.

Figure 18. Tree growth at CO2 levels: ambient, +150 ppm, +300 ppm, and +450 ppm.

“A strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing [from the models]…we have practically no anthropogenic climate change…the low clouds control mainly [sic] the global temperature.”

~ Finnish and Japanese scientists working independently

“The effects of CO2 are very small, maybe a few percent of the effects of water vapor.”

~ Reid Bryson, former professor of geology and meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, founder of University of Wisconsin’s Department of Meteorology and Center for Climatic Research, first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies

(12) Clouds are a profound contributor to the greenhouse effect and are nearly impossible to model. There is 50-fold more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2 and it’s estimated that water makes up 80% of the Earth’s greenhouse gas.49 According to NASA in 2008 “the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”50 The article now carries a warning that some of its contents might be questionable. (That was so long ago…and so inconvenient.) Higher temperatures also increase the atmospheric moisture content and clouds, offering yet another feedback loop thwarting even crude modeling efforts. There is not a snowball’s chance in hell (or even Greenland apparently) that these guys can predict the influence of clouds years into the future.

“Climate change is all solar, and the CO2 has never been shown to be causal.”

~ Nir Shaviv (@nshaviv), chairman of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

(13) Don’t forget the sun! The most demented of alarmists have claimed that methane from cow farts threaten the climate and go on to argue that we should have fewer cows. Meanwhile, they ignore the mighty influence of that 1030-kilogram ball of fusion that we call the sun, radiating unimaginable energy onto the globe. Why is this? Of the dozens of IPCC members, only one is a solar scientist.51

Figure 19. The collective effects of changes in the Earth’s movements on its climate over thousands of years.

Legions of solar physicists, drawing on their expertise in rhythmic solar cycles, including sunspot activity and 100,000-year Milankovitch cycles (interactions between the Earth’s movements and the climate),52 think the sun influences the climate rather profoundly.53 Go figure. Here are words from two prominent ones:

“CO2 emissions don’t play the major role [in climate change]. Periodic solar activity does. Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change. That, in turn, implies that climate sensitivity to CO2 should be about 1.0 degree when the amount of CO2 doubles….All of it shows the same thing, the bulk of climate change is caused by the sun via its impact on atmospheric charge, which means that most of the warming comes from nature — a freshman physics student can see this…The climate of the last millennium was presented as basically fixed until the twentieth century. This is a kind of Orwellian cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined narrative.

~ Nir Shaviv (@nshaviv), chairman of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

“Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979-2000) lay outside the normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history. Furthermore, solar forcings of temperature change are likely more important than is currently recognized.”

~ Willie Soon, PHD, solar astrophysicist, Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

You know what these solar physicists are now warning about? We are heading into a significant Maunder minimum, which means we are gonna freeze our asses off.

“Glaciers Are Retreating. Millions Rely on Their Water.”

~ Headline, New York Times

(14) Melting glaciers are deceptive and great doom porn. Pictures of melting glaciers call people to arms. While the ice is receding in the arctic and elsewhere in the north, it is growing in Antarctica.54 Beware of claims about shrinking ice masses because the total mass of ice appears to be holding constant…55

“Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming?”

~ Headline, The Guardian

Greenland used to be much greener and has been getting colder for decades. The Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland, known for being one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth, is growing again.56 An arctic climate tour boat carrying a film crew to document global warming got stuck in the ice between Norway and North Pole twice. It is meaningless but funny.

“A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

~ AP News, June 29, 1989

“There is robust evidence of disasters displacing people worldwide but limited evidence that climate change or sea-level rise is the direct cause.”


(15) Rising oceans will not drown us. Nobody doubts the oceans are warming and levels rising, in part, through thermal expansion. The internet is loaded with projections like this one showing an exponential rise in sea level:

Looks kinda scary but one wonders about the origins of that exponential curvature. I stare at plots for a living and can’t grasp what physical model would justify putting an exponential into that function. As we shall see below, the data does not show such exponential growth. Quite to the contrary.

The sea level has been rising for 14,000 years following the last glaciation. At the current rate, by the year 2100 sea levels will have risen 10 inches. OMFG! Can you guess how much they rose in the 20th century? Yup, 10 inches. Remember all those catastrophes? Me neither. Over the last 8,000 years, sea levels have risen on average 10 inches per century. To be fair, some models put the projected rise over the next century as high as 30 inches (assuming exponential growth, of course). Nonetheless, you get a very different perspective if you look at these changes over different timespans

25 years of sea level rising…

100 years of sea level rising…

20,000 years of sea level rising…

As Tony Heller would say,28 after 400 ft of rising sea levels, those last few inches are our fault. And as the guy in “The Graduate” said to Dustin Hoffman:

“I have just two words. Are you listening? Sump pumps.”

~ The Graduate

(16) Human-driven extinction has been going on for millennia. The arrival of hominids was bad news for many species. I am not ready to seriously weigh in on the biology of global warming, but here are some fun facts and thoughts:

  • Habitat loss and pollution, both consequences of human impacts, are said to be primary causes of extinctions. Climate change is on the list somewhere.58
  • It is rumored that polar bears die. If you happen to see a photo of a late-stage polar bear, that beast might look rather pathetic (Figure 20). Do you think this wretched soul is starving because he has run out of ice? Are there no fish in that water? They eat a lot of seals but can dine on a wide array of stuff (including fish) or, as they say, “anything they want.”59 How about that brown bear known as Beadnose? It is a sad story: he eventually lost the battle to a dominant bear.60 As an aside, the polar bear population has tripled since the 1970s. Come on folks: think.

Figure 20. Malnourished polar bear and brown bear. The latter is Beadnose Bear #409.60

  • Word from some Caribbean Islands is that some coral reefs have flourished over the last two years. The islanders attribute the reefs’ good health to recent hurricanes ruining the tourist seasons, giving the corals a break from greasy sun-screened hands and flippered feet.61 (Hurricanes also beat them up pretty seriously.) Professor James Ridd of James Cook University criticized the veracity of the research claiming reef damage was due to global warming. He got fired but was awarded $1.2 million by the courts.62 He’s probably snorkeling in the Caribbean as I type.
  • Daniel Rothman, professor of geophysics and co-director of the Lorenz Center in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, paints a dire picture of our impact on ecosystems.63 Of course, his new and improved climate-biology model that he is pitching has two—count ‘em, two—differential equations. When he adds a lot of CO2, the model goes bonkers. I betcha he engineered the equations to go nuts. My bullshit detector is flickering.
  • The IPCC claimed malaria would spread north seemingly unaware that the highest death toll recorded from Malaria occurred in Siberia during the 1920s. There is an ongoing debate about which malaria we are talking about.64
  • Here is a thought: if predatory bird populations—bald eagles and osprey—were depleting right now, would our obsession with climate change cause us to overlook the role of DDT?

“These fires were not caused by climate change…the Amazon is not the ‘lungs of the world’…It’s bullshit.”

~ Dan Nepstad, Executive Director of and Senior Scientist at the Earth Innovation Institute, a lead author on the 5th IPCC Assessment Report, and world’s expert on the Amazon forest.

(17) Serious climate change is undetectable to the naked eye. Tell your pot-headed nephew majoring in sociology at Christmas dinner the yearly changes are microscopic on an annualized basis even if we are totally screwed. That hurricane last week or the snow-free January tells you nothing, zero, nada, zippo. Annual sea level rises are the thickness of a penny. The wildfires in Brazil stem from slash and burn agriculture, not global warming, and, more importantly, they are not above the norm.65 Deep dives into the extreme climate events (hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes) back to 1900 show no statistically significant change.66 And if they did, your lyin’ eyes could not detect the change. I promise to not denounce global warming because it was cold last winter if y’all promise not to declare it a crisis ‘cause it was hot last summer.

“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”

~ Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), bartender turned climate activist

“Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.”

~ Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow), PhD and Founder of Greenpeace, to AOC

(18) The “precautionary principle” is a double-edged sword with a big price tag. It basically says that when in doubt, play it safe.67 Many of my friends instinctively view the climate change movement as “why not?” without looking at the monetary and political ramifications. Should we spend trillions of dollars on Green New Deals or let the climate change unabated and risk global catastrophe? Both carry a price. Milton Friedman, when confronted with the notion that one human life lost is too many, noted that a billion dollars was too much to pay for a life.68 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC’s) and Elizabeth Warren’s Green New Deals to address climate change could top out at wildly guestimated >$100 trillion.69 AOC is a former bartender, for Christ’s sakes. The Paris Accord is also estimated to cost a wildly guesstimated $100 trillion dollars to lower the temperature 0.25 °C.70 Adaptation would be a lot cheaper. I am with Milton and joining the Fryers Club of Rome.

“Just because there is a problem doesn’t mean that we have to solve it, if the cure is going to be more expensive than the original ailment.”

~ Bjorn Lomborg, former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute

People understand the costs, albeit in the most self-serving way. A recent poll showed that the majority of Americans were willing to address climate change if the personal cost to them was $1 per month but balked at $10 per month.71 In a psychology study,72 a survey of 600 American adults identified them as climate “skeptics,” “cautious worriers,” and “highly concerned.” Questions pertaining to their life styles showed the “highly concerned” were most supportive of government solutions and least likely to take actions as individuals. By contrast, the “skeptics” were most opposed to policy solutions and most likely to live “green.” What this study might be showing is that worrying stems from a sense of losing control. This hypocrisy is breathtaking, causing the skeptics to view the changers with deep-seated ligma.73

“According to the global-warming people, I say what I say because I’m paid by the oil industry. Of course I’m not, but that’s part of their rhetoric. If you doubt it, you’re a bad person, a tool of the oil or coal industry.”

~ Freeman Dyson, legendary physicist at Princeton’s Institute of Advanced Study.

“The few who push back against the propaganda, such as Roger Pielke Jr., find themselves on the receiving end of abuse and career-threatening attacks, even though they have all the science in their corner. Something has gotten scary and extreme, but it isn’t the weather.”

~ Professor Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph specializing in environmental economics and policy analysis.

(19) Conflicts of interest are profound. There seems to be a prevalence of old men in the outspoken denial camp, possibly because they have little to lose except their dignity. They are often accused of taking money from “Big Oil” and other corporate interests, but I have had little success making such connections. Alex Epstein, a relative moderate advocating for human adaptation, complained that Big Oil has been pathetically unsupportive. After he failed to get a corporate sponsor for a debate with an activist Alex paid for it personally.74

Those who focus on “Big Oil” funding are missing the “Big Government” funding problem. A group called the “Climate Policy Initiative” estimated that $359 billion was spent globally on climate change in 2013 and suggested that such money “falls far short” of the $5 trillion per year that would do the trick.75 Vast international organizations, branches of government, non-profit organizations, scientific research programs, university departments, and well-paid administrators are funded to solve the problem. The US Department of Transportation allocated funds to study the effect of climate change on car accidents. Really? Car accidents? Carbon credits are allocated to corporations to be spent like medieval Catholic Church Indulgences for their sins of emission.76 Tesla sold theirs to more legitimate automakers to stay solvent.77 Wall street banks are salivating over trading carbon credits. HSBC, JP Morgan, and Blackrock refer to “the climate opportunity”.78 All this will simply vanish if global warming is declared a dud. What are the odds it will be declared a dud? Zero.

“It helps to be old. I do not have to worry about finding another job.”

~ Freeman Dyson, legendary physicist at Princeton’s Institute of Advanced Study.

There are numerous stories of papers going unpublished and careers destroyed because scientists did not endorse climatism. I have decades of experience with the peer review system and would be stunned—stunned—if a grant that smacks of denialism could be funded by a Federal agency in the current climate. The term “never” comes to mind. When pressed, chemistry colleagues who are warm to the idea of global warming largely agree with this assertion. Lennart Bengtsson calls it “McCarthyism” in his letter of resignation:79

“I had not expect(ed) such an enormous worldwide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support; other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship.”

~ Lennart Bengtsson, former head of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg

Judith Curry, atmospheric scientist and climatologist, was forced into early retirement from Georgia Tech for expressing reservations about the more extreme claims by climate scientists.80 Polar bear expert Susan Crockford was dismissed from the University of Victoria after deviating from the narrative that the polar bears are dying off.81 Nir Shaviv puts the problem in stark terms in a Forbes article:

“The real problem is funding from funding agencies like the National Science Foundation because these proposals have to undergo review by people in a community that ostracizes us…If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person. Who wants to be a sinner?”

~ Nir Shaviv, chairman of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Shaviv’s Forbes article was pulled within hours “for failing to meet our editorial standards”. Open debate shouldn’t be this hard.

And here is the really funny one. Michael Moore began a documentary on alternative fuels, undoubtedly with an eye toward hammering Big Oil, only to discover a corrupt and convoluted world of Big Wind and Big Solar. His long-term collaborator and producer noted:82

“It turned out the wakeup call was about our own side. It was kind of crushing to discover that the things I believed in weren’t real, first of all, and then to discover not only are the solar panels and wind turbines not going to save us … but (also) that there is this whole dark side of the corporate money … It dawned on me that these technologies were just another profit center.”

~ Jeff Gibbs, co-producer with Michael Moore of “Planet of the Humans”

Gibbs goes on to say, “This is not a film by climate change deniers; this is a film by people who really care about the environment…We all want to feel good about something like the electric car, but in the back of your head somewhere you’ve a nagging thought, ’Yeah, but where is the electricity coming from?’” Michael Moore adds, “I’m one of those people who wanted to believe all of these years that we were on the right path.” Moore’s and Gibb’s documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” aired at film festivals this summer but has yet to be released to the general public.83

“I feel very strongly that China and India getting rich is the most important thing that’s going on in the world at present. That’s a real revolution, that the center of gravity of the whole population of the world would be middle class, and that’s a wonderful thing to happen. It would be a shame if we persuade them to stop that just for the sake of a problem that’s not that serious.”

~ Freeman Dyson, Princeton Physicist

“Go and explain to developing countries why they should continue living in poverty and not be like Sweden.”

~ Vladimir Putin, head of Russia’s Climate Denial Bureau, to Greta Thunberg

“We are gonna have to eat the babies.”

~ Detractor spoofing AOC

(20) Modern humans have been pulled out of grinding poverty by capitalism and fossil fuels. Those leaning hard left are determined to eliminate both “evils.” If we eliminate fossil fuels abruptly—decades—humans will starve. Returning to the lifestyle of the noble savage will require knocking decimal points off the world’s population, and it ain’t gonna be the rich who suffer. Environmentalists used to support natural gas and wind power. Now they fight fracking and pipelines while raging against bird-killing rotors. Municipal leaders like the Berkeley City Council have banned natural gas from new residential construction.84 The shale boom seems to be waning anyway,85 so peak oil discussions may reappear soon. Nonetheless, keep fighting that pipeline because it would be a disaster to get yet another…

Figure 21. Natural gas pipelines.

The green revolution was powered by fossil fuels. We are not in a position to force the world carbon-free. Dutch farmers have started a “no-farmer, no-food” movement to push back against Draconian measures.86 The one potentially limitless source of power—nuclear energy—is not even on the table in the US. How many years will it take to build the next plant? In the wake of Fukushima, Japan is reverting back to coal by bringing 12 new coal-fired power plants online, 15 more are being built, and 10 in the planning stage.87 The beloved biofuels—beloved by the corn lobby—is a complete non-starter unless you can harvest the shrubbery from oceans because the world’s topsoils are depleting.88 What are the odds India and China will forego their fossil-fuel-driven economic renaissances? Zero.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

~ Maurice Strong, former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Program

(21) The global warming movement is about political control. The IPCC, largely a political body, is controlled by a relatively small core group. There is a not-so-subtle undercurrent of cultural Marxism. Let’s look at a few more nuggets to convey how much of a political tool climate science has become:

“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

~ Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC official speaking in November 2010

“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right things in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

~ Tim Wirth, Senator, chair of Clinton-Gore Campaign, and UN official

“The Green New Deal wasn’t originally a climate thing at all … we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

~ Saikat Chakrabarti, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s handler and founder of the Justice Democrats

“Climate change: Firms failing to tackle crisis will be delisted from stock exchange.”

~ Headline, The Independent

The wildly popular Paris Accord provides support for poor countries to develop alternative energies while requiring no emissions cuts.89 Who couldn’t like that? For starters, the poor within the prosperous countries would be hurt by mandatory fossil fuel reductions. The Green New Deal is yet more government control and will be incompatible with the US Constitution and capitalism. Some view that as a win. Then there is this gem from a scientist-turned-activist:

“We are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

~ Steve Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, deceased

As noted in the section on the Fed, central banks around the globe have begun chattering about roles central banks will play to solve climate crises going forward. A global network of roughly 40 central banks have formed the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS),90 an initiative intended to “manage risks and to mobilize capital for green and low-carbon investments.” I cannot tell if our banking overlords view this as yet another opportunity to destroy the free market and maintain power or simply establish an alibi for when it fails. I view that group as largely mid-level, intellectually incontinent bureaucrats.

“In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive.”

~ Roger Pielke Jr, former Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder

(22) Humans adapt. I am less afraid of global warming than of the political solutions. Hominids made it through ice ages, crossed the Bering Strait, and eventually crossed the Atlantic Ocean (to conquer those who crossed the Strait.) There is a place in Russia with a record single-year temperature range of –90 °F to +114 °F; the residents adapt. Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, articulates the case for human ingenuity and adaptation.91 While the climate changed throughout the 20th century, deaths from severe climate events dropped 97%.92 Alex emphasizes maximizing human progress and the human existence while accepting the requisite tradeoffs; we always have.


“Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under the omnipotent moral busybodies.”

~ C. S. Lewis

(23) Nobody—not one person on the planet—knows what will happen. Of this, I have no doubt. We are all guessing. Here is my gripe. The climate is so complex with so many feedback loops we cannot possibly fully understand it. The best we can do is apply the “precautionary principle” by balancing mitigation and sacrifice. What makes debates with climate activists so problematic is that so many suffer from the ‘’noble cause’’ syndrome. “I’m right so I’ll fight!” I have engaged in contentious debates on many subjects, but none like this. I have never seen a more mean-spirited gaggle of pseudo-experts so quick to deploy scorched Earth tactics. Their sanctimony impedes serious discussions. They really can be serious douche bags. Go back and read those Gerry Mueller emails: what a dick.

“The arrival of Greta Thunberg in New York on Wednesday was one of many recent events that illustrate how rapidly modern environmentalism is degenerating into a millenarian cult.”

~ Niall Ferguson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and former senior research fellow at Oxford and Professor at Harvard and New York Universities.

(24) Pedophrasty is for the gullible. Using children as political pawns or shields—so-called pedophrasty—is commonplace. Young girls are optimal given that counter-attacking looks particularly distasteful. A young Kuwaiti girl was used to generate support for the Gulf War. Countless children are props during abortion protests. David Hogg was the face of gun control. (I still have that vomit aftertaste.) One study claims that teenage girls are best at convincing their parents climate change is a problem.93 Who in their right mind would turn to teenagers for wisdom on globally important geopolitical topics? There is also a cost. A group of psychologists from the University of Bath have documented an epidemic of children who are ‘terrified’ of climate catastrophe and have “eco-anxiety.”94 Of course, these may be the snowflakes in an otherwise warming environment.

The climate pedophrasts found what they thought was the perfect prop—a young girl “on the spectrum” named Greta Thunberg—who, by her own admission, should be picking marshmallows from her Lucky Charms and heading off to school. Her vapid speeches add absolutely nothing of substance to the debate. I suspect she even has to fake her sneers because of her high function whatever. She is a Child of the Corn—a weaponized Shirley Temple—straight out of 17th century Salem, MA. In a ridiculous media stunt Greta crossed the Atlantic in a zero-emissions sailing boat, fitted with a diesel engine and made from carbon fiber that required 14 times more energy to produce than a conventional boat.95 Six crew members had to take trans-Atlantic flights. She gave the most cringe-worthy speech to the UN, chastising the audience for taking air flights to the same meeting while the fawning crowds of nitwits did the baby shark dance. After a snafu got her stuck on the wrong side of the pond,96 a shadowy cabal of handlers realized they had created a big optics problem: How do they get her back across the Atlantic without emitting carbon? The virtue-signaling Tidepodler had to put out her thumb:

“Now I need to find a way to cross the Atlantic in November… If anyone could help me find transport I would be so grateful.”

~ Greta Thunberg, hitching a ride because a meeting was moved from Chile to Spain

Let us not forget the lucrative speaking fees, which I could not track down, but likely total in the millions of dollars. Speaking tours are lucrative. She was “snubbed for the Nobel Peace Prize”, instead giving it to Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed for ending the 20-year Eritrea conflict.97 The prize money would have bought her a yacht stocked with carbon-free food and crew. She will probably never have to learn to code. She is now Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. She shares this with Donald Trump and a host of other deplorables. I actually think it is a valid decision given it is not about good or evil.


No doubt as a homework project for her home-schooled civics class, Greta (and her tutors) filed a legal brief accusing five countries—Germany, France, Brazil, Argentina, and Turkey—of inaction on global warming in violation of the 30-year-old UN Convention on the Rights of a Child.98 French prime minister Macron was pissed.99 German drivers sported “F*ck you Greta” bumper stickers.100 At some point, she will head off to college, maybe Harvard where she could team up with David Hogg. Meanwhile, you have never been a parent if you are getting your jollies from a 16-year-old sneering at you.

“There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears, and tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other – namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population.”

~ Chris Packham, BBC host of a wildlife show

“Fully half of all the fossil fuels ever burned throughout all of history have been burned since 1990….How many more doublings do you think we’ve got?”

~ Chris Martenson (@chrismartenson), Peak Prosperity

“The raging monster upon the land is population growth. In its presence, sustainability is but a fragile theoretical construct.”

~ E. O. Wilson

“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.”

~ Kenneth Boulding, economist and peace activist

(25) Overpopulation and other pressing issues. I believe we are polluting the planet and rapidly strip mining it of critical resources. For this debate, however, do not conflate the human-driven consumption and destruction of the Earth’s resources with the specific issue of climate change. We are consuming limited resources, dumping plastics into the oceans, and spewing goo into the air and waterways. We really should stop. The Great Pacific Garbage patch is comprised of recycled yogurt containers from the US sent to China. Recycling isn’t green; consuming less shit is. We may consume ourselves back to the stone age and take the planet with us, but I am doubtful that we will fry in the process. The climate change debate is sucking the oxygen out of these other environmental debates.

“Today in chapel, we confessed to plants. Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt and sorrow in prayer; offering them to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor. What do you confess to the plants in your life?”

~ @UnionSeminary

“Those plants think you’re all morons.”

~ Mark Dice (@MarkDice)

(26) The climate change movement is a bug light for whack jobs. I can’t tell if I actually doubt global warming or if I doubt the movement, which is increasingly populated by the ill-informed. Last year I wrote through the lens of an atheist about the social glue of religion and how pushing religion to the margins has a cost. We are replacing religion with social causes, whether it be hatred of Trump, support for the second amendment, or, yes, fear or denial of climate change. The newly formed “Extinction Rebellion” movement, a subset of the sanctimony-climate complex, aims to disrupt the function of society to emphasize their angst over climate change. The common folk, living from paycheck to paycheck, would have none of it as they dragged the Rebels off the tops of subway cars and then adjusted their attitudes.101 Rebels superglued themselves to the streets,102 seemingly oblivious to the concept of “road kill”. Marinating in ignorance, some activists have recommended making skyscrapers out of wood.103 I’m sure the Truthers will find that a novel idea. If the catastrophists took the time to understand why some of us don’t believe them instead of just assuring us we are crazier than them while acting like crazies, maybe we could optimize the precautionary principle. Until it is safe for the scientists—all the scientists—to engage in honest debate without fearing reprisal, this seems like a pipe dream.

Figure 22. Extinction rebels saving the planet.

“As the climate warms, human beings are more likely to get dehydrated, which increases the risk of [kidney] stone formation.”

~ Kevin R. Loughlin, Harvard Medical School literature online

And in a final comment, two gentlemen in this debate whom I have never directly interacted with and who likely detest each other with passion, have finally found a point they can agree on…

At least Steve McIntyre is still talking to me. Somebody please tell Tony I’m an admirer and that I like his T-shirt. I suspect this may be the last I write on the subject. It has not been that fun. I am unknown to the climate denial community, but I won’t be surprised if I get to know some changers soon. I should also say that, while my research in chemistry is funded by Big Government, I have never received a penny for my views from Big Oil. But as an academic scientist, if you guys want to send me a big honkin’ check I’d be up with that.

“Science is a culture of doubt. Religion is a culture of faith.”

~ Richard Feynman, winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics (and one of the greats on that scale)

“Climate change is the religion for people who think they are too smart for religion.”

~Tom Nelson (@tan123)

Given its length, we’ve had to break this report in half so as not to crash your browser.

Click here to read Part 2 of David Collum’s 2019 Year in Review, available free to all readers.

Related content
» More


  • Sat, Dec 21, 2019 - 3:12am

    Chris Martenson

    Chris Martenson

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 6804


    Two Ways of viewing Climate Change

    As the data stands, I see there are two ways to see climate change.

    (1) Political power and money grubbing banks have been accumulating around the topic of climate change for their own benefit AND it is real.

    (2) Political power and money grubbing banks have been accumulating around the topic of climate change for their own benefit BUT it is not real.

    I think Dave Collum has done a superb job of raising the degree to which legitimate scientists have been ostracized and stifled as they try to bring forward their research that might not fit the dominant narrative which, as pointed out above, has a lot of very interested power players on board.

    What if...what if the power structures have known about peak oil as a reality for a long time?  What if they didn't know about shale oil (like the rest of us at the time) and that goes a long ways towards explaining the many lies and falsehoods behind attacking Iraq?

    What if their plan has always been to be "on top" of the heap that scrambles for the last dregs of oil as things wind down?  What if they rightly concluded that fighting for the oil was not an option, not in this world of hypersonic missiles and the fact that China has a land route to the Middle East while the rest of the OECD has to sail there?

    What if given all that they settled on another strategy for getting that oil for themselves?  What would that strategy look like?

    There really aren't that many ways to get it "peacefully" but one of those would include "convince the rest of the world that they cannot afford it."  This is especially awesome if you can simply print up hundreds of billions of dollars per month without any seeming consequence because you and your locked-in central banker ring have got all the financial ""markets"" under complete control.

    Well, now you need some sort of a narrative that supports that angle.  But what might do the trick?  Probably has to be something really large, something existential.  Preferably something that you can lock out the poor people by making it such that they can't afford to pay the taxes and levies that are placed upon the oil to save the earth.  Sorry Africa and Asia!  You were just too late to participate.

    I remain open to either option (1) or (2) being correct because I am data dependent.  I am deeply troubled by the heat waves we've been seeing around the world these past few years, and the diminishing age and extent of sea ice in the arctic, and I am also scrutinizing the Maunder minimum, worrying about a decades long cold spell,  and thinking about installing extensive glass paneled (for longevity) greenhouses on my new property.

    I'm holding both worries at the same time.

    But one thing I am *not* confused about is that, as a scientist, I am always deeply offended by obvious societal and cultural pressures to shut down any full inquiry into anything.  There are legitimate, data-driven, empirical studies about vaccine loading and how the current all-at-once schedule is not optimal yet this information is literally and metaphorically shouted down...which only serves to make me more curious about it.

    Many thanks to SandPuppy and others for opening my eyes and bring the data to that gunfight.

    I am also counter-averse to the charge of "conspiracy theorist!"  As soon as I hear that I know (1) I am speaking with someone who is prone to absorbing MSM-CIA talking points without critical evaluation and (2) that the topic probably is worth looking into.

    Dave Collum has done a great service in assembling a huge array of legit climate scientists who are saying the same thing; they are being shut down for reasons other than peer-review and logic.  It means that there's a different script running. At least one that is different than the fable of science we tell ourselves ... the one that centers on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    Any good science welcomes any and all challengers.  It is not threatened in the slightest by new comers with probing questions and new experiments.  It only detests shoddy science, cherry-picked data, and false conclusions.

    Just something to think about.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 21, 2019 - 8:06am



    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Apr 05 2011

    Posts: 560


    Iraq (and Libya)

    There's another explanation for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which also explains Libya.  Saddam started selling his oil for Euros.  Gaddafi created the gold Dinar which he saw as a way for Africa to shed the French Franc and US Dollar.  Both leaders were a threat to dollar hegemony and had to go.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 21, 2019 - 12:39pm


    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 675


    Mark_BC said:

    That's how I've always seen it too -- just because the political power and money grubbing banks have been accumulating around the topic of climate change for their own benefit -- doesn't mean that climate change isn't real. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I put little to no faith in charts since both sides of the debate seem adept at producing them and you have no idea of the validity of the data underlying them. Those charts amount to nothing more than pretty pictures. I'd strongly lean towards anthropogenic climate change being real since the precautionary principle would clearly suggest that doubling the concentration of one of the main greenhouse gases is going to have SOME significant impact on climate, especially since the Earth is 14 C warmer than it would otherwise be if there were no greenhouse gases at all, and the obvious trend would be a higher temperature if you increase GHG concentrations... seems pretty obvious to me.

    That being said I am highly disappointed with the popular discussion around climate change. IMHO it completely misses the mark and we aren't even discussing the right things. That really should come as no surprise to me at this point, being the justifiably cynical person I am when it comes to anything mainstream, since ANYTHING talked about in the mainstream is never given proper treatment and inevitably turns into a partisan circus designed to inflame both sides of an issue, get them focusing on red herring nonsense and muddle the whole thing rather than further widespread understanding and come to some kind of a resolution. It's almost as if those in power DON'T want people understanding the issue --- LOL who'd a thunk??

    The climate seems to be getting a lot of media attention lately and I've learned enough to know that anything of significance that gets on the media is there because it is allowed to, and/or purposely put there for a reason. There is clearly some other motive for the emergence of this subject onto the scene lately. What that is, I'm  not sure exactly but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. Most likely some kind of new spending and taxation scheme to further enrich the military industrial complex.

    On the Greta Thunberg side, how many times do we need to hear about how "we need to do something" to fight climate change, but are never really told of any practical specific actions this would entail (and the results we could expect) other than throwing some solar panels wind turbines out there which, as we have learned from places like Peak Prosperity, don't have a hope in hell of making any difference to emissions due to their low EROEI and dependence on fossil fuels for manufacture -- never even mind the implications of Jevon's Paradox even if solar panels were able to achieve decent EROEI. Simply put, the climate alarmist camp has no idea whatsoever what is required to reduce carbon emissions, nor of the economic consequences of this, nor of how to mitigate those economic consequences.

    Secondly, the entire climate debate we are suffering through is almost pointless because, as I think most of us on this site accept, it is far too late to do anything about it anyways. Sorry Greta, you were just born 50 years too late. We have passed tipping points and clearly humanity could not survive without fossil fuels. Given a choice between 7 billion people starving or the Marshall Islands sinking, is there even a contest? Alternative energy will not be able to step up to take over from fossil fuels. Climate change WILL occur, and all remaining easily accessibly fossil fuels with reasonable EROEI WILL come out of the ground. End of story. Let's move on to adaptation strategies.

    And then on the other side you have the climate deniers who seem to completely miss the point that fossil fuels are running out and we will be forced to decarbonize regardless. The sooner we transition, the better we'll all be. Instead they go on and on about the economic impacts of addressing climate change and seem equally ignorant of how the economy truly works as the climate alarmists do. First of all, since when have economists argued that spending money is bad for the economy? Not for many many decades, more like centuries. But for some reason, when it comes to spending money to fight climate change, that's bad and we can't afford it. But more importantly, it's a totally bass ackward argument -- because it won't cost ANYTHING to reduce carbon emissions. We will SAVE money by reducing emissions.

    The ONLY way to reduce carbon emissions is to stop economic growth (and this will only be a part time reduction since as I pointed out above, all of the fossil fuels will be eventually be coming out of the ground -- it merely stretches that out over a longer time frame). We could dramatically reduce carbon emissions tomorrow, literally, if we wanted to, and it wouldn't cost a thing. If we stopped economic growth we would have no more need for new housing developments and infrastructure and all the emissions related to building those, no need to support this pointless consumer culture to prop up the markets and all the emissions related to making and transporting all that crap, less of a need for mined materials and all the emissions associated with getting the metals out of the ground and refined down. Instead, we could stop economic growth tomorrow and 75% of the people could just take a deep breath of that 400 ppm CO2 air, relax and go for a walk in the park. Bam, done. Right there, emissions would drop at least 50% across the board, tomorrow. So we would save all that money that would otherwise be wasted on new suburbs we don't need, crappy new gas guzzlers we don't need, and all the other crap we think we need but don't -- we'd save trillion$.

    But.... as we all know, the inevitable consequence of stopping and reversing economic growth is a deflationary depression -- massive unemployment and a collapsed financial system, leading to social chaos. But this is a consequence of the rigged system that the elites have set up to rape and pillage the middle class. It is not a necessary conclusion. Rather, the elites' economists just aren't smart enough to think up alternative systems that would not result in this consequence, and those systems would not be favourable for the elites... but society could take back all the wealth, redistribute it amongst the 99%, and cancel all debt and mortgages. Then the average person really could just sit at home and go for a walk in the park most of the time, and all he'd have to worry about is buying food and a bit of energy. The rest of his life could be relaxation time with his family and pursuing hobbies, the way it should be when we have robots doing so many of our jobs for us. He'd need to work a few hours a week to afford that. It really is that simple, at least technically. The hard part is kicking the elites out.

    And as a final note, I wouldn't give Patrick Moore any credit. He doesn't deserve to be quoted.

    "Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore notes that at 280 ppm we were nearly carbon starved compared with prior ages. Even 400 ppm is starved by historical standards."

    What he conveniently neglects to mention is that the sun was dimmer back then when CO2 was higher.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 21, 2019 - 4:05pm



    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 21 2018

    Posts: 3


    Not finished yet, but...

    'This was the needle in Uma’s chest in Kill Bill.' Shouldn't that be Pulp Fiction? Thanks, Dave! Please give us a 4 hour recap on the QTR podcast.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 21, 2019 - 5:06pm

    David Collum

    David Collum

    Status: Member

    Joined: Aug 24 2008

    Posts: 31


    Climate denier and resource depletion hawk


    My intent was to sow the seeds of doubt in the climate story, not to refute it but to regenerate discussion of the type that appears here. That you cannot contest the climate change models is precisely why I contest the climate change models. Half of what I said may be wrong, but only the free market of ideas will show that. In any event, I am a peak oil/peak resource guy and big detractor of plastics-based pollution. We need alternative energies. We need to consume less. All these principles are likely common to Chris's and Adam's readers.

    Wish y'all well. Thanks for reaching the comments section (of part 1).



    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 21, 2019 - 8:09pm



    Status: Member

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3111


    climate framing vs peak resources framing

    Whether you are a peak resource hawk, or a climate hawk, your "action item list" is roughly equivalent.  [yes?]

    As I've said other places, I think it is interesting that the aims of "climate people" involve transitioning off fossil fuels "to save the planet" (or to save our happy spot on said planet), which provides a more positive motivation for humanity than transitioning off fossil fuels because we are running out of them.

    As a meta-strategy or "problem framing", I think a "climate emergency" framing is better, since the "running out" (shortage) mind-set will drive humans to scramble for the remaining resources (and all the wasteful and destructive warfare that will entail) while "saving the planet" necessarily means NOT scrambling for the remaining resources because if you do this, you are "killing the planet."  (boo - you are a bad person - and you are dooming us all too!)

    "In the simulations that the CFR Projections group ran, the 'saving the planet' scenarios had substantially better outcomes than 'we're running out of resources' scenarios."

    [for the humor impaired - I'm making that last one up. But the sense of it does feel right.]

    Of course, others have figured out how effective this is, and are now employing climate framing in order to justify socialism!   Doh!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 21, 2019 - 9:51pm



    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1614


    this is one is for saving

    Superb post Chris, one of the best you've written and one I will save to e-mail friends and acquaintances and especially those I might be at ideological odds with.  Ditto for the kudos to Sandpuppy on the vaccines as well as a number of other issues.  He has picked up the topics started years ago here (that were then banished to "the basement") and has run with them and taken them to new heights.  And I love Dave Collum.  I think we share a lot of DNA for how our brains are wired.

    I think we always need to keep in mind certain thoughts when dealing with corporate and government entities, more so the more powerful they are:

    (1) Assume they are lying until you can prove they're telling the truth.

    (2) Assume when they tell you it's for your own good, your safety, or the children, it isn't.

    (3) Assume they will always support their well being and/or existence over yours.  It's convenient and accurate to think of them in terms of being collective (as opposed to individual) sociopaths.

    (4) Assume that if they are censoring it, it is something that would be good for you to know and is probably closer to the truth than what they are promoting in its place.

    (5) Assume that if they are cramming "something" down your throat, you shouldn't trust "the something".

    (6) Assume that if you can't question it or them, something is wrong with it or them (along with its corollary of, if they are trying to silence you on something, it's probably something that should be spoken out about).

    (7) They will continue doing what they've always done (and worse) unless they encounter strong resistance.  Be the strong resistance.  Encourage others to do likewise.  People often ask me, why do you fight this entity or that entity about this or that?  I tell them because if you let the bastards get away with it, they just want more and more and more.  Give them some of their own medicine and they start to rethink their actions.  Along this line, I applaud the folks in Virginia fighting the 2nd Amendment threat with sanctuary counties and other measures and I mourn the New Zealanders (a nation and people that I respect) who've seemingly rolled over so readily on the issue.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 21, 2019 - 11:19pm

    David Allan

    David Allan

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Nov 15 2009

    Posts: 107


    Don't be so sure about that AO

    AO wrote - I mourn the New Zealanders (a nation and people that I respect) who’ve seemingly rolled over so readily on the issue.

    Don't be so sure about that. The arms buyback scheme closed on Friday reportedly with only  15 - 25% of banned guns having actually been surrendered. So there is obviously major dissent here and I suspect there will be a considerable backlash against our esteemed Prime Minister in next years election

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 1:26am



    Status: Member

    Joined: Apr 24 2011

    Posts: 238


    Great Book

    Best book you’ll ever read on the vaccines issue:

    Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History
    Book by Roman Bystrianyk and Suzanne Humphries


    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 3:39am

    Chris Martenson

    Chris Martenson

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 6804


    Right on, Mark_BC

    The ONLY way to reduce carbon emissions is to stop economic growth 

    That's entirely true, at least according to the past 51 years of data.

    I'm thoroughly unaware of any way to switch over to alt-energy solutions that doesn't require the extensive use of fossil fuels to install, maintain and then eventually replace these systems.

    I am thoroughly unaware of any closed-loop installations where alt-energy systems make the energy that is used to completely to install, maintain and then eventually replace themselves.

    I am thoroughly unaware of any studies being performed to run the basic energy balance equations that would seek to answer any of these questions:

    • How much of the estimated remaining fossil fuels would be required to build the new energy infrastructure?
    • How much of the energy output of the new alt-energy systems would be required to maintain them?
    • What fraction of the energy output of the new alt-energy systems would be required to rebuild them?

    These are dead-simple questions to raise.  How much of the remaining energy is going to be needed to build the new systems and how much of their own output would be required to keep them going indefinitely?

    Seems pretty obvious.  As obvious as needing a household budget.

    Yet nobody is tasked with these questions, and funding is slight.  I know of only a handful of university professors taking a swipe at these very deeply thorny questions and - surprise! - the ones that make the biggest splash say how easy this all will be if only we'd just get up and do it!

    The Global Price Tag for 100 Percent Renewable Energy: $73 Trillion

    A global effort to transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050 would cost nations $73 trillion upfront — but the expense will pay for itself in under seven years, according to a new report from researchers at Stanford University.

    The study also found that the shift to a zero-carbon global economy would create 28.6 million more full-time jobs than if nations continue their current reliance on fossil fuels.

    The report, published in the journal One Earth, presents detailed roadmaps for how 143 countries that account for 99.7 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions could successfully transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.

    See?  Just spend a few bucks, create nearly 30 million new jobs in the process (which is very growthy, so instantly supported by the in-crowd) and it will all pay for itself in under 7 years!

    Some follow up questions I have:

    • How many manufacturing facilities have these professors run?
    • How many logistics companies have they operated?
    • What evidence do they have that we'll be able to conduct mining operations, operate vast cargo ships, and fly jumbo jets using electricity?

    The answers are zero, zero, and none.

    The "study" is  a mess of assumptions and jargon that are sure to impress other academics, but which your average policy maker will find rather incomprehensible.

    Example from the summary "results" section:

    We first projected 2016 end-use BAU energy in multiple energy sectors in 143 countries to 2050 (Note S3). 2050 BAU end-use energy loads were then electrified, the electricity for which was provided by WWS energy (Notes S4–S12). Table 2 and Figure S1 indicate that transitioning from BAU to WWS energy in 143 countries reduces 2050 annual average demand for end-use power (defined in Note S3) by 57.1% (case WWS-D in Table 2). Of this, 38.3 percentage points are due to the efficiency of using WWS electricity over combustion; 12.1 percentage points are due to eliminating energy in the mining, transporting, and refining of fossil fuels; and 6.6 percentage points are due to improvements in end-use energy efficiency and reduced energy use beyond those in the BAU case. Of the 38.3% reduction due to the efficiency advantage of WWS electricity, 21.7 percentage points are due to the efficiency advantage of WWS transportation, 3.4 percentage points are due to the efficiency advantage of WWS electricity for industrial heat, and 13.2 percentage points are due to the efficiency advantage of heat pumps.

    ZZZzzzzzzzz...*snork* whut?

    Just to pull out one assumption is this one, the calculated energy savings from no longer exploiting fossil fuels: "12.1 percentage points are due to eliminating energy in the mining, transporting, and refining of fossil fuels"

    They are claiming 12.1% energy 'savings' (which is a lot) because we're no longer digging up or using oil, gas or coal.  Okay, fine, but where's the energy 'ding' for having to mine, manufacture and sell nearly a billion EV vehicles (planes, trains, ships and automobiles)?  Is there enough lithium for that project?  That's not stated.

    The costs of the conversion are nowhere to be seen.  I guess those just magically appear via some magic market mechanisms or something?

    No matter, this hopeful fantasy of "if we just decided to do it, it would be easy, self-liquidating and make more jobs!" is exactly what the dominant growth-oriented belief system wants to hear.  If you said it any other way ("geez, fellas, it's going to be hard, uncertain, and possibly a colossal failure, we don't honestly know") you wouldn't get that tasty media splash that keeps your department chair happy.

    Again, this chart must be kept front and center, and reconciled with whatever hopes and dreams any plan might have.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 5:19am



    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 417


    Toothless Rednecks Have Doubts

    Some of us STILL think that the observed data (settled science) has been linked to CO2 because that narrative provides a mechanism to centralize power.  The dogmatic refusal to consider the effects of other factors and the religious zeal of ACC proponents says it all to me.  But hey, I'm a lost cause anyway - I still think 9/11 was an inside job, peak oil is real, and Epstein didn't kill himself.


    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 5:28am



    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 417


    More Ignorance


    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 6:08am



    Status: Member

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 74


    What I continue to be frustrated about (and scared)

    That you (Chris) and Dave Collum and the other good people on this site... seem to be the only people on the planet connecting these dots.  You all make total sense but no one anywhere puts this together the way you all do.  When I read at the peakoilbarrel site, some (awesome people) get this but many are in the renewable energytopia camp.   When I read fintwit they get the debt/dollar problems but not limits to  resources.  Seems like climate change people are in the renewable energytopia camp also and as Dave points out not questioning CC assumptions more deeply.

    What am I trying to say?  What is it with people that so few people outside of this site put everything together as you all do.

    I am reading Ugo Bardi's Seneca Collapse book right now and would like to just recommend it to everyone.  Chris - I would be great to have him back on to discuss it.  I guess deep down my biggest fear is of a harsh decline curve (which to me is looking very likely) because so many systems on the way down could collapse at the same time.

    Happy holidays to all!  You all keep me going all year long!


    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 6:58am



    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1614


    that makes me hopeful

    That is good news David but is their dissent hidden or out there and vocal?  To me, 15 to 25% is still too many.  I remember a similar measure passed by the state legislature in New Jersey in the USA many years ago banning any semi-automatic rifle with larger than a 5 round magazine as an "assault weapon".  If I recall correctly, there were only a few hundred guns turned in when there were an estimated number in the high hundreds of thousands that were still out there.  So the number turned in were less than 0.1%.  I know in my neck of the woods, there is NO ONE I know who owns a firearm who will turn it in ... NO ONE!  And by and large, our law enforcement would side with the public on this issue.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 9:29am



    Status: Member

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3111


    common sense


    I think your post really captures much what has been lying, unorganized, in the back of my mind for quite some time.  I edited it down for brevity.  This is something I need to post on my fridge - it is just a collection of utter common sense.  I'll repeat it again just because I liked it so much:

    (1) Assume they are lying until you can prove they’re telling the truth.

    (2) Assume when they tell you it’s for your own good, your safety, or the children, it isn’t.

    (3) Assume they will always support their well being and/or existence over yours.

    (4) Assume that if they are censoring it, it is something that would be good for you to know and is probably closer to the truth than what they are promoting in its place.

    (5) Assume that if they are cramming “something” down your throat, you shouldn’t trust “the something”.

    (6) Assume that if you can’t question it or them, something is wrong with it or them.

    (7) They will continue doing what they’ve always done (and worse) unless they encounter strong resistance.

    It may not be right in every single instance - but boy.  Right pretty darned often.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 10:03am

    Chris Martenson

    Chris Martenson

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 6804


    Common Sense

    Speaking of common sense, Dave:

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 10:23am


    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 2895


    Why won’t they listen?

    It may be that Nature has marked them for extinction.And maybe there’s nothing we can do about it. 🤷‍♂️

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 10:30am



    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Sep 05 2010

    Posts: 151


    CrLaan said:


    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 2:06pm



    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 22 2019

    Posts: 1


    warmer in the past?

    You mention growing barley in Greenland as an indication that the earth has been warmer in the recent past, but being able to grow barley in Greenland is an indication that Greenland was warmer in the past.  Do we have temperature records from around the globe from that time frame that indicates average global temps were higher then than now?  I don't believe we do.  So the only conclusion we can come to about growing barley in Greenland is that Greenland temps--and coastal Greenland at that--were warmer in the past.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 4:46pm



    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1614


    warmer in the past and colder in the past

    The world's record high temperature was 136.4 deg. F in El Azizia, Libya in 1922.  And the record high temperature in Death Valley was 134 deg. in 1913.  So there are couple more data points.  Core drillings also show that the polar regions were much warmer in past history by virtue of the evidence of the type of vegetation found.  I wonder if the polar regions now were the polar regions then or if a pole shift occurred and the equatorial regions were much colder at the time the poles were warmer.  With the magnetic north pole moving faster and faster towards the south, I wonder how much that change affects climate.  The other thing I always wonder about is, is there any cyclic variation in the geothermal heat originating from beneath the surface of the earth from nuclear fission?


    We know there's cyclical variation in the energy put out by the sun via nuclear fusion and since virtually every action or process in nature is cyclical in nature, I would venture a guess that there is some variation but I've never read anything on the subject.  Any geophysicists out there?    Then, of course, there's global dimming and the McPherson Paradox.  That sure complicates things.  And I also wonder what extent of climate change creates a climate emergency and what extent of climate change is hunky-dory and how such factors as distance from the magnetic poles, latitude,  elevation of the area in question, size and shape of the land mass of the area in question, proximity to a body of water of the area in question (and the size and depth of that body of water), etc. and putting together zillions of those individual data points factors into acceptable versus unacceptable climate change.  And, of course, there's that big ole mass of luminescent gas hanging up in the sky.  Dang, this climate business sure is complicated.


    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Dec 22, 2019 - 11:18pm


    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Sep 08 2008

    Posts: 376


    You just have to look...

    For a start just type 'glacier tree stumps' into bing.

    As glaciers are melting some of them are  are exposing the remnants of what was there.

    In a number of cases it is tree stumps.

    Patagonia, Alaska, Iceland, Switzerland, Russia, Canada, Yellowstone.

    In some of these locations the current tree level level is 350m lower than where the once buried forests grew.

    Regards Hamish

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Dec 23, 2019 - 1:00am



    Status: Member

    Joined: Oct 26 2018

    Posts: 16


    This is why I come here

    This is one of the few places on the internet where a normally polarizing topic is discussed by a contributor. The views of the contributor may even be at significant variance with those of the host and a good portion of the membership. Subsequently, the comments section is populated with a rational exchange of views that serves to add further nuance to the topics at hand.

    Is this what the “civilization” thing you more experienced folks keep talking about used to look like?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Dec 23, 2019 - 7:18am



    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 2895


    For next year’s Year In Review


    Chattanooga officials are clamping down on hate speech through a program called Hatebase, but they will not specify what is and is not hate speech.

    The Chattanooga Times Free Press defines Hatebase as “an early warning system that helps identify situations of concern” to stop mass violence before it begins.

    But how do city officials define hate speech?

    The Tennessee Star posed that question to the office of Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke in an email Friday.

    City spokesman Kerry Hayes responded with this:

    “City staff do not define hate speech, as that is not the purpose of the Mayor’s Council Against Hate or the Hatebase tool,” Hayes said.

    Hayes also said no city funds or taxpayer dollars pay for the city’s use of Hatebase.

    But what happens to people government officials deem are guilty of hate speech?

    “We believe that anyone who commits a hate crime should be appropriately charged and adjudicated,” Hayes said without specifying what, precisely, happens to people who commit hate speech — not hate crimes.

    As The Times Free Press reported, the city has a Council Against Hate website where “residents can submit sightings or incidents of hate speech they experience or witness. The city pulls this data nightly from Hatebase and adds it to a dataset used to monitor hate speech in the community.”

    “The City of Chattanooga is one of the first local governments that Hatebase has partnered with in the U.S.,” the paper reported.

    “Hatebase originated from the Sentinel Project, an international nonprofit based out of Toronto that works to prevent genocide and mass atrocities through engagement and cooperation with victimized populations across the globe.”

    According to DigitalJournal.com, “Hatebase has gathered a growing list of over 3,600 terms considered to be hate speech.”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Dec 23, 2019 - 9:31am



    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 675


    Mark_BC said:

    In Canada, typically it has been that you can say what you want unless it ventures into hate speech, defined as you encouraging or inciting violence against someone else. I suspect that definition will change as more and more people start telling the truth, and you will instead be guilty of hate speech if you hurt someone's feelings. And pointing out the evidence for false flag events will surely hurt someone's feelings, so that is how they will clamp down on free speech.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Dec 23, 2019 - 11:52am



    Status: Member

    Joined: Apr 24 2011

    Posts: 238



    I’ve got to admit. Reading the tea leaves is becoming extremely unsettling. I’m afraid, given readers on this site are likely those that have taken the Red pill, we’re probably a sentinel species. Challenging the official narrative, regardless of evidence, is becoming very dangerous..,

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Dec 23, 2019 - 12:28pm



    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 534


    And the specific cause is:

    "The first half of your life is ruined by your parents and the second half by your children." Clarence Darrow

    Sometimes, the obvious is not obvious enough!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Dec 23, 2019 - 3:15pm

    Cariolian Starfighter

    Cariolian Starfighter

    Status: Member

    Joined: Aug 31 2017

    Posts: 12



    Ice is no longer growing in Antarctica, Antarctic Sea Ice Extant is surprisingly low this year.


    And humans very likely killed all the wooly mammoths (previous comment up there), they didn't just go extinct naturally.  We ate them.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Dec 23, 2019 - 9:12pm



    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1614


    wooly mammoths

    What's the best explanation you've found for how many of them have been found ... flash frozen ... completely intact ... with undigested food in their stomachs ... sometimes even standing up?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Dec 24, 2019 - 3:09pm


    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 08 2010

    Posts: 62


    Flash frozen Mammoths...

    Hi ao,  thats my best shot 😉




    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 25, 2019 - 12:21am



    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 1143


    Problems with "Prehistoric Humans Did It"

    Cariolian Starfighter wrote:

    Ice is no longer growing in Antarctica, Antarctic Sea Ice Extant is surprisingly low this year.


    And humans very likely killed all the wooly mammoths (previous comment up there), they didn’t just go extinct naturally.  We ate them.


    Although early humans probably did eat their share of woolly mammoths, that isn't what caused them to go extinct - at least in North America. The Younger Dryas climate change event occurred from about 12,900 BP to 11,700 BP (started ~13,000 years ago and lasted about 1,200 years.) That period is associated with a megafauna extinction event in North America.


    Here are five problems with the human hunting theory:

    1) Raw volume of animals

    The theory has mainly been applied in isolated incidences and without accounting for all animals lost. The number of mammoths alone was estimated between 5 and 12 million. A staggering number which suggests other factors played a prominent role in their extinction.

    The sheer body mass to hunt to extinction is an anomaly in itself. At roughly 6 tons each that is roughly 60 million tons of wooly mammoth to be hunted and killed. Then add the many other species of megafauna. Could humans cause this level of hunting driven extinction?

     2) Variations

    Is it a stretch to imagine humans as the sole cause for the termination of all species at once? It may, for instance, explain why one species was hunted into extinction. What of the vastly different types of megafauna present at the last ice age?

    Hunting a mastodon and saber tooth tiger, for example, are two very different styles of prey. The vast disappearance appears to be a barrier to the hunting hypothesis.

    3) History

    Humans and mega mammals had coexisted together for thousands of years.

    There are studies of human causes for extinctions of mammals in the fossil record. These, however, are only isolated events, with the majority of fossils records showing no sign of human interference.

    3) Time Span

    The disappearance of megafauna fossils appears very rapidly at the Younger Dryas event of 12000 years ago.

    Or in other terms, a geological blink of an eye.

    5) It coincided with the loss of humans.

    If humans were the dominant eradicator of species, why would they to disappear in the same period?

    The Clovis people who lived amongst megafauna in North America also vanished during the Younger Dryas period.

    The iridium-rich layer at the K-T Boundary ("K" is the abbreviation geologists use for the Cretaceous period and "T" is for Tertiary.) has been associated with the Chicxulub Crater centered off the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico, for which a strong case has been made for an asteroid impact that contributed to the observed mass extinction. That happened about 65 million years ago. There is a similar layer associated with the Younger Dryas.


    The Younger Dryas Black Mats

    Of the 97 geoarchaeological sites of this study that bridge the Pleistocene-Holocene transition (last deglaciation), approximately two thirds have a black organic-rich layer or “black mat” in the form of mollic paleosols, aquolls, diatomites, or algal mats with radiocarbon ages suggesting they are stratigraphic manifestations of the Younger Dryas cooling episode 10,900 B.P. to 9,800 B.P. (radiocarbon years). This layer or mat covers the Clovis-age landscape or surface on which the last remnants of the terminal Pleistocene megafauna are recorded. Stratigraphically and chronologically the extinction appears to have been catastrophic, seemingly too sudden and extensive for either human predation or climate change to have been the primary cause. This sudden Rancholabrean termination at 10,900 ± 50 B.P. appears to have coincided with the sudden climatic switch from Allerød warming to Younger Dryas cooling. Recent evidence for extra-terrestrial impact, although not yet compelling, needs further testing because a remarkable major perturbation occurred at 10,900 B.P. that needs to be explained.

    The current theory is that a large comet or meteor disintegrated in the earth's atmosphere above North America and added extraordinary energy to the earth's atmosphere - thus causing the widespread, but not global, extinction level event. Since the meteor disintegrated, there is no "smoking gun" crater available to examine. If this were an isolated incident, a random meteor striking the earth's atmosphere would make sense. If it is cyclical, there's likely a better answer.

    Finally, here is a graph showing "Total snow mass for northern hemisphere, excluding mountains." I have no clue how they develop the data for this chart. I'll take it at face value. As I read it, the northern hemisphere, unlike Antarctica, has accumulated well above average snow for this time of year. Winter is still young.



    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 25, 2019 - 5:58pm



    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Aug 16 2009

    Posts: 129


    Hoisted from comments...

    ...on Ugo Bardi's blog Cassandra's Legacy

    • At the end of the day belief in climate change or gravity are optional, participation mandatory.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Dec 25, 2019 - 6:47pm



    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Aug 31 2013

    Posts: 246


    Robert Schoch interview - alternative theory for Younger Dryas

    Robert Schoch did an interview with Joe Rogan. The main portion of the interview is about the age of sphinx being much older than originally thought. But in it he discusses his theory of a solar magnetic storm producing the widespread lightnight strikes which caused geological changes that mainstream geologists think was possibly from an asteroid impact. Interesting alternative theory put forth by Schoch.




    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 26, 2019 - 12:29am



    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 1143


    Solar Storm Cycle


    Thanks for posting that link to his website. The interview was just too long (just under 3 hours) for me to wade through at this time.

    I vaguely remembered listening to a video a while back that the Younger Dryas was part of a ~12,000 year cycle. It didn't mean too much to me at the time ... so I didn't follow up on it. As I remember there was another extinction at ~24K ago, one at about 37K ago, and another between 48K-50K. I wanted to find the video, but got trapped down other rabbit holes. Since I couldn't find something to substantiate my post, I just wrote what the mainstream view was (comet/meteor breakup) and left with "If it is cyclical, there’s likely a better answer."

    The rabbit hole got really deep when I viewed a presentation by Dr. Anthony L. Peratt (Robert Schoch's website mentions him.) Dr. Peratt is a physicist who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory studying plasma physics. In the presentation, he said he became interested in petroglyphs when a friend (or colleague) showed him photos of local petroglyphs. He said that he had only seen these types of pictures in the top secret plasma physics laboratory.

    In his presentation, he briefly explained the features of plasma physics and how it could manifest in a high energy solar stream interacting with earth's magnetic shield. In the laboratory, they are able to produce the same results with power input varying over 14 orders of magnitude. He said that theoretically, they can produce the same results with power varying up to 28 orders of magnitude. (Note that going from 1->10 is 1 order of magnitude as is going from 10->100. Think of it as the number of zeroes in the number. 1028 is a huge number! A million is only 106.)

    He showed that many of the petroglyphs were recordings of what was likely an extremely high energy solar storm. These images were recorded in rock by primitive peoples. They didn't have the internet to communicate - yet these types of petroglyphs from around the world are remarkably similar. They must have witnessed the same (or similar) plasma events and were moved enough to chisel what they saw in stone using primitive stone tools. For people just worried about getting through today, it must have been incredibly significant!

    If there is a cycle to this and the cycle is approximately 12,000 years ... and the last event occurred about 12,000 years ago, we may have another date with destiny coming up. Of course, the periodicity is hard to pin down. It could be 499 years out and still fit the criteria. Besides, what can be done about it? It either happens or it doesn't. As a result, it doesn't ding my "worry" bell. I'm still intrigued by it.

    [Note that I just spent the last 3 hours trying to find the video. I delete my web history and cookies every day or I could easily find it. In my defense, if they weren't out to get me, I wouldn't be so paranoid. 😉 Nonetheless, too much vigilance comes with a price. The video I have been recounting was a presentation by Anthony Peratt to a group in the UK in 2003. It is ~1 hour 20 minutes long. If anyone can find it, please post it.]


    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 26, 2019 - 12:43am



    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 13 2014

    Posts: 130


    Grover vídeo - is this the one?

    This one is Anthony Peratt, Petroglyphs, 1h 20mins long to UK audience...but in 2005 not 2003...

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 26, 2019 - 2:13am



    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 1143


    Thanks Geedard


    That's the one! Thanks for finding it. The video is just so-so, but the topic is absolutely fascinating. There's too much coincidence here for me to dismiss it.


    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Dec 26, 2019 - 1:35pm

    agitating prop

    agitating prop

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: May 28 2009

    Posts: 849


    agitating prop said:



    When scientists make the claim about 12,000 year cycles do they mean relatively recently, like the last few hundred thousand years, or just the last 100,000 years?

    i just wonder if there have been enough of these 12000 year cycles to establish a strong pattern.

    Thanks for the video.  It was really interesting.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Dec 27, 2019 - 7:25am



    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Oct 13 2014

    Posts: 130


    Video’s are fascinating

    Agree with Lambertad and Grover. Fascinating topic and evidence.

    Thanks for opening my eyes to this 👍😊

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 28, 2019 - 5:00am



    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2019

    Posts: 2


    That research has been done.

    Here is the life cycle greenhouse gas emission from just about every electricity generation method (I recommend the Box and Whisker). As far as resource use, here is a report on mineral sorcesing for the whole world on wind and PV with electric cars and heating. It waves away quite a bit more than I think it should but IMO we should be relying mainly on nuclear power anyways. Even counting Chernobyl and Fukushima more people die per kW generated from falls installing wind and PV, orders of magnitude less than any carbon fuel.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 28, 2019 - 5:37am



    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2019

    Posts: 2


    lots of errors.

    I don't have the time to go through and do a through reply but for starters:

    That time magazine cover is 100% fake. Your discussion on model error is misleading at best.

    Sea ice is only at the water's surface of the south pole and usually melts every summer and thus is totally irrelevant to sea level rise and says little to nothing about global warming.

    I can't tell if you think MMT is obviously right by will cause inflation, in which case read this, or wrong on the merits, in which case read this. Hint Monetary sovereignty requires that a country 1. be the monopoly issuer of it's currency, 2. free float it, and 3. not borrow in other currencies.  If you are going to come up with counterexamples keep that in mind.

    I could go on but I have things to do.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 28, 2019 - 7:36am


    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Aug 31 2013

    Posts: 246


    12000 year cycle

    agit prop,

    I don't have enough information to answer the question about how strong the cycle is, I only started looking into a few months ago when talking a colleague about Egypt and the true age of sphinx came up. The Solar Induced Dark Age is quite an interesting hypothesis.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Dec 28, 2019 - 7:00pm



    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1614


    the world is burning up?

    I was listening to NPR driving the 400 miles back home from my daughter's house after Christmas and a celebrity environment activist stated how "the world is burning up". Really? Does this person actually think that such hyperbolic statements lend credibility to the climate change narrative? While at my daughter's, I happened to find a read a copy of "The Hidden Life of Trees", which, by the way, is a wonderful book. It underscored to me how we often think we know something but really don't [know] at all. There was a passage describing how pine trees 14,000 years ago survived a 42 deg. climb in temperature and then a 42 deg. drop in temperature, all in the span of only 30 years. This was obviously pre-industrial. No anthropogenic climate change here. And somehow, life went on and we're still here, both man and pine trees.

    People talk about how the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence shows that man is causing climate change. Yet, in my own field, time and time again I've seen how an overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence suddenly gets proven wrong. And almost always, there was money and/or power and/or social pressure driving the generation and proliferation of scientific evidence for an agenda that served the few but recruited the many to back their view (even though it usually wound up working against the many).

    Isn't it funny how carbon is such a huge problem? Yet in our state, in communities under a certain size, they allow burning of leaves and brush. Really? And first responder and government vehicles will sit there idling for hours. Really? And the elite fly in their private jets and cruise in their private yachts all over the world but the rest of us are supposed to scale down our standard of living. Really? And our government wages war all over the globe that generates carbon release like nothing else but that's OK. Really? And TPTB allow and I daresay promote the rampant production of cheap, shoddy, new and improved(?) goods with very limited life spans so you keep having to buy new stuff to replace the old stuff which is lasting shorter and shorter periods of time and becoming harder and harder to fix, all of which takes more and more carbon to create. Really? Almost every government official and government agency is screaming about climate change but how many of them are encouraging society away from being a wasteful, throwaway culture? Next to none. Virtually everything that you are brainwashed about by government and corporate entities is to make you more reliant and dependent. Heaven forbid you should be self-reliant and independent. Can't have that among the proles. And the proles fall for it, hook, line, and sinker. Feed me, take care of me, help me, gimme free stuff. Interesting, isn't it?

    I just wonder who came up with the name, "climate change". To me, it's an incredibly stupid name so I'm opposed to using it and thereby validating it. What CAN'T be lumped under that name? Virtually nothing! Too cold? Climate change! Too hot? Climate change! Too wet? Climate change! Too dry? Climate change! Well, it's the variability and extremes you say. So who determines what's too variable and too extreme for such and such location? How non-variable and non-extreme should it be. I wonder if the problem is really climate change. I personally think the problem is pollution. Frankly, I think "pollution crisis" is a better phrase to describe our troubles. Our planet is being damaged in a multitude of ways from a plethora of pollutants but somehow, the one that can be used to the greatest benefit by an elite to amass wealth and power and to control a population is carbon. Hmm ... Isn't that an odd coincidence?

    Chris says that energy is the master resource and that thesis certainly seems well founded to me. And the source of most of our energy on the planet is carbon in one form or another. Tighten your controls over the production, distribution, and utilization of carbon and tax its consumption and it's hard to imagine anything that will give you more wealth, power, and control. Tyrants have known for millennia that if you control the food supply, you control the people. But food is only one source of carbon. Broaden that control to all the different forms of carbon that produce energy (whether food, oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) and you have the people by their short hairs. And get them all to agree to it (which is usually pretty easy to do when ovine thinking predominates in our world). It's the perfect scheme.

    Let's say we instantaneously go to zero carbon tomorrow. We're still left with the vast majority of environmental problems we presently have. So now what?

    So put me in Dave Collum's boat. I think he did a phenomenal job of presenting a number of facts that raise valid questions about the climate change issue. You don't have to know the scientific literature in an area backwards and forward to smell a rat.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 03, 2020 - 7:51pm



    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: May 05 2009

    Posts: 615


    running some numbers

    Son #2 called last week and asked if I read David Collum's year end review.  He has a PhD in aerospace engineering and works in R&D in the wind industry.  I asked him if this passes the sniff test:

    He said his gut said no and sent me this today:

    In 2006, turbine manufacturer Vestas studied the carbon payback period for various turbines. This took into account extraction and manufacturing of raw materials, production of the turbines, their transport, erection, operation, maintenance, dismantling and disposal, and the same for their foundation and the transmission grid. The figure was between seven and nine months, depending on the type of turbine. Other analyses have come up with similar figures.


    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jan 14, 2020 - 7:46pm



    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2019

    Posts: 3


    Climate change follies

    “Nobody on the planet—not one person—knows what will happen to the World’s climate and ecosystem 50 years from now. We are all guessing, some more than others.” ~ Me

    If I understand Mr. Collum's climate change analysis correctly, we should only be worrying about greedy banks and power hungry politicians?  We don't really know the consequences of putting more pressure on the environment.  Therefore, we shouldn't be concerned.  We should pay close attention to financial trends, but climate trends are a fraud and a hoax.

    A few random comments:
    1. CO2 is good for trees but it's important the trees don't get too dry or they catch on fire.
    2. Belching cows and pigs are why if they were a republic they'd rank third in greenhouse gas emissions.
    3. The analysis in terms of money omitted cost. The last ten years were
    landmark decade of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters:

    The 14 separate U.S. billion-dollar disasters in 2019 represent the fourth highest total number of events (tied with 2018), following the years 2017 (16), 2011 (16) and 2016 (15). The most recent years of 2019, 2018 and 2017 have each produced more than a dozen billion-dollar disasters to impact the United States—totaling 44 events. This makes a 3-year average of 14.6 billion-dollar disaster events, well above the inflation-adjusted average of 6.5 events per year (1980-2019).

    On a slightly longer timeframe, the U.S. has experienced 69 separate billion-dollar disaster events over the last 5 years (2015-2019), an inflation-adjusted average of 13.8 events per year. Over the last 40 years (1980-2019), the years with 10 or more separate billion-dollar disaster events include 1998, 2008, 2011-2012, and 2015-2019.

    The month-by-month accumulation of billion dollar disasters for each year on record.

    "The month-by-month accumulation of billion dollar disasters for each year on record."


    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 15, 2020 - 6:07am



    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 30 2015

    Posts: 30


    wind energy- turbine payback

    This took all of 3 minutes to find- the quote is not complete and presented as if it is. The actual point made is that it depends on SITE- with a low wind site you'll never get payback was the point made. Duh. with a good site the payback in EROI can be as little as three years. Being in Kansas we don't lack for wind...

    Thomas Homer-Dixon responds

    After seeing many versions of the quote on social media, Homer-Dixon responded in 2018 with a blog post labelling it “fraudulent”.

    “I didn’t write the text, the text itself is selectively quoted, and the argument it makes, taken in isolation, is meaningless,” he wrote.

    “This text is selectively excerpted from a chapter written by David Hughes in Carbon Shift (2009), a book I co-edited.”

    He concludes: “So, 1) I didn’t write the text, 2) the text itself is selectively quoted, and 3) the argument it makes, taken in isolation, is meaningless. Three strikes.”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 15, 2020 - 6:44am



    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jan 01 2010

    Posts: 934


    Re: Climate change follies

    Did you adjust data for the phenomenon of building more and more in flood zones, in fire alleys, and on unstable mountain sides?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 15, 2020 - 6:47am



    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Jan 01 2010

    Posts: 934


    Re: running some numbers

    Don't trust numbers provided by the manufacturer as they have an incentive to massage numbers to increase sales.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 15, 2020 - 7:12am

    Chris Martenson

    Chris Martenson

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 6804


    Re: Re: running some numbers

    Don’t trust numbers provided by the manufacturer as they have an incentive to massage numbers to increase sales.

    That's usually the case.  But here specifically there are two entirely different numbers being "debated."

    Let's clean it up.

    One set is asking about the "energy payback" and the other is a "carbon payback" whatever that is.

    I don't trust either number presented to be honest.   My gut tells me that on strict energy in/out terms that windmills are net positives.  On a more realistic basis, I am not so sure because we don't have a single example yet of the energy from windmills being used to entire build new windmills.   I'd be willing to bet that on that basis windmills are barely positive at all.


    For example, the gigantic fiberglass and epoxy blades...those alone can be 0% manufactured using windmill output.  There are exactly zero electrically operated epoxy plants.  Also zero fiberglass plants.  So the blades cannot be made at all.  Not a single one.

    To do so would require a huge amount of supply chain reconfiguration which would be immensely energy expensive.  Can epoxies be made out of organic (non-petroleum) feedstocks?  Not yet, not at scale at any rate.  What about the components that would have to go into building and maintaining a new organic-based epoxy plant?  How many of those can be made using only windmill generated electric output? 1%?  Less?

    And so on.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 15, 2020 - 7:13am



    Status: Member

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3111


    back of the envelope

    So a back of the envelope can be done just using money.  How long will it take a well-sited wind turbine to make back its total cost of production & installation?  If it needs a subsidy, that's a bad sign.  If it can generate enough electricity in 3 years to pay itself off, well, that's a strong hint it is EROEI positive, because it is having to compete with coal and natgas generation which we know are EROEI positive systems.  Well, except for shale gas...which appears heavily subsidized at the moment...

    I'm not sure we need to be so strict in our analysis: requiring windmill power to construct each and every one of its components from windmill energy is too strict.  If electric power replaces much of transport fuel, then the declining crude output can be redirected away from transport to windmill construction, among other things.  File that under the heading of, "we will never run out of oil, but the declining output may need to be rationed to critical industries."

    Such as the windmill construction industry, for instance.

    That one change could buy you another 30 years.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 15, 2020 - 8:01am



    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 04 2009

    Posts: 1614


    I wondered the same thing, KugsCheese

    I've witnessed building in flood zones where some officials palms' were obviously greased to allow what shouldn't have been allowed.  And buyers bought in those areas even though they were warned repeatedly.  And now they have flooding ... repeatedly.  Plus, more and more building with associated paving causes more and more water run-off and more and more flooding.  Ditto with the associated deforestation in these areas where trees would have previously absorbed moisture, stabilized the soil, etc. but now are gone and can't fulfil those roles.  Plus, population densities in general have risen, meaning if any catastrophe hits any area, there are greater repercussions.  Plus, lots of crappy building has been allowed.  I've seen newer houses lose siding or their roofs or collapse altogether in response to such catastrophes as hurricanes when older, better built structures were undamaged or survived.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 15, 2020 - 9:14am



    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: May 05 2009

    Posts: 615


    review article on wind EROI

    This analysis reviews and synthesizes the literature on the net energy return for electric power generation by wind turbines. Energy return on investment (EROI) is the ratio of energy delivered to energy costs. We examine 119 wind turbines from 50 different analyses, ranging in publication date from 1977 to 2007. We extend on previous work by including additional and more recent analyses, distinguishing between important assumptions about system boundaries and methodological approaches, and viewing the EROI as function of power rating. Our survey shows an average EROI for all studies (operational and conceptual) of 25.2 (n = 114; std. dev = 22.3). The average EROI for just the operational studies is 19.8 (n = 60; std. dev = 13.7). This places wind in a favorable position relative to fossil fuels, nuclear, and solar power generation technologies in terms of EROI.


    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 15, 2020 - 9:36am

    Quercus bicolor

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 1170


    Wind energy EROEI

    I would agree that wind power has a relatively high energy return.  They do have two big issues, though.  The first is that in order to operate a grid with lots of wind power, their intermittency requires storage and a much more complex grid setup and operations.  The second and bigger one is that they are limited by the available energy which is ultimately either 1) the downward flux of momentum from the middle and upper atmosphere where it is generated by strong pressure gradients; and 2) smaller scale wind circulations driven by thermal gradients in the lower atmosphere.  I don't have time to search right now, but research suggests that we will hit saturation well before we've replaced all of our current energy use with wind.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 15, 2020 - 11:52am

    Quercus bicolor

    Status: Gold Member

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 1170


    reference for global wind energy resource limit


    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 15, 2020 - 2:00pm



    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 1143


    Battery Storage

    Quercus bicolor wrote:

    I would agree that wind power has a relatively high energy return.  They do have two big issues, though.  The first is that in order to operate a grid with lots of wind power, their intermittency requires storage and a much more complex grid setup and operations.  The second and bigger one is that they are limited by the available energy which is ultimately either 1) the downward flux of momentum from the middle and upper atmosphere where it is generated by strong pressure gradients; and 2) smaller scale wind circulations driven by thermal gradients in the lower atmosphere.  I don’t have time to search right now, but research suggests that we will hit saturation well before we’ve replaced all of our current energy use with wind.


    Thanks for that link. It was a short and understandable synopsis of the issues with wind power availability. Although he made some big assumptions, his conclusion that wind power will top out at ~6% of global electricity supply feels right. Gail Tverberg https://ourfiniteworld.com/ notes many problems with intermittent electricity. As you noted, "it requires a much more complex grid setup and operations." Gail Tverberg's opinion is that the grid can only operate efficiently with no more than very low double digit percentage of intermittent power. Why? Stable sources need to be available for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. When the wind blows and the sun shines, those stable sources become momentarily redundant. Since electricity has to be consumed the moment it is generated, and those redundant systems can't ramp up/down instantaneously, some of the stable standby power needs to be wasted to ensure that enough continuous power is available for consumers.

    The holy grail of intermittent power generation is battery storage. I keep looking for scalable systems that will store and release massive amounts of energy as needed. Once that happens, intermittency issues essentially disappear. Until that happens, intermittent power sources are more like toys ... when tools are needed.

    I watched a Ted Talk with Donald Sadoway several years ago. He was talking about a liquid metal battery system that theoretically could be scaled up to the size of a semi truck trailer. He's formed a company with one of his graduate students: https://ambri.com/ Here's how his battery works:


    The liquid metal battery operates because it's got electrodes made of liquid metal as opposed to lithium-ion, which has electrodes that are made of solid. Classical batteries have typically solid electrodes and a liquid electrolyte. In our case, we have both liquid electrodes and a molten salt, which is also a liquid electrolyte.

    The way the battery operates is that there’s density differences, and one of the metals is high density and it lies on the bottom of the cell, and then above that is the molten salt which is the electrolyte.  And then on top of the molten salt lies a low density liquid metal... The three layers just self segregate, kind of like oil and vinegar. So that's that's the basic premise behind it, and at MIT we've invented a plurality of chemistries that can serve as the electrode choice for the top layer and the electrode choice for the bottom layer.

    As far as I know, the system is about 75% efficient (same as an Edison battery.) The inefficiency generates the heat that keeps the components molten. It didn't look like anything significant was happening for years. In September, 2019, they announced a deal with NEC. That tells me that progress is being made; however, lots more progress needs to be accomplished before it will be ready for prime time.


    [Full Disclosure: I have absolutely zero financial interest in this company. I just find the technology promising and hope it (or some other system) can help wean us off of fossil fuels before it's too late.]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jan 15, 2020 - 7:23pm



    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2019

    Posts: 3


    Re: Climate change follies

    One more disagreement and one place where we're mostly in agreement.

    1. Once your analysis was complete you decided to go after Greta Thunberg and her "pedophrasty handlers." Please leave her and your ideas about pedophrasty alone. She'll grow up and free from her handlers play in the snow when climate change turns out to be a hoax. Or her opinion about 50 years from now turns out to be the truth. Either way, kids everywhere should have a voice. It's their future, not ours.

    2. Regarding:

    Overpopulation and other pressing issues. I believe we are polluting the planet and rapidly strip mining it of critical resources. For this debate, however, do not conflate the human-driven consumption and destruction of the Earth’s resources with the specific issue of climate change. We are consuming limited resources, dumping plastics into the oceans, and spewing goo into the air and waterways. We really should stop. The Great Pacific Garbage patch is comprised of recycled yogurt containers from the US sent to China.

    The list of critical environment issues is long: depletion of fresh water aquifers, plastic garbage everywhere including in human poop, smog, the accelerating extinction of plants and animals (possibly we're at the beginning of a 6th extinction), human over-population, and toxic metals dumped into the air and ground. These issues are all symptoms of the current Anthropocene epoch.  Climate change is one more symptom. We don't need to argue about how bad climate change will be. We do need a holistic approach to address the cause of all these issues.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jan 17, 2020 - 6:22pm


    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2019

    Posts: 3


    Re: Re: Climate change follies

    Did you adjust data for the phenomenon of building more and more in flood zones, in fire alleys, and on unstable mountain sides?

    It's not my data to adjust.  The data is from the NOAA Climate.gov site.

    My understanding is that building and paving over wet lands and building in forests prone to fire are what is driving an increase in multi-billion dollar weather and climate-related disasters year over year. We agree on this point. The second point though is that forests are incrementally more prone to fire and former wetlands more prone to flooding because of climate change.

    I apologize that I missed the chart Mr. Collum presented that shows US disaster "hazard" losses from 1980 to 2016 as a percentage of US GDP:
    US Hazard Losses 1980-2016 as percentage of GDP

    From the chart, 2005 was a very expensive year. That year four hurricanes hit the US, Katrina, Emily, Wilma, and Rita. The GDP was at 3.51 % in 2005. I'm curious what the years since 2016 look like, especially 2017 and 2018. In 2017, hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria hit the US and Puerto Rico. It was the costliest hurricane season on record, costing 294.92 Billion dollars (from Wikipedia). The US GDP was 2.22 % in 2017. In 2018, the California fires cost 400 billion dollars, another record. The GDP was 2.86 % in 2018. Hazard losses will probably be trending upward even when normalized by GDP, unless the GDP starts taking off.

    Login or Register to post comments