Wednesday, November 25, 2009


Look, the IMF's books are almost certainly as cooked as IEA's have been shown to be. If they suggest it might happen in four or five years I'd say that we would be very lucky to have just one. Critics can continue to scoff but with each passing day our predictions are coming true. This is not dot connecting or analysis anymore. They're telling us exactly what's going to happen in the Times of London.

Let them that have eyes, see.



pstajk said...

Peddler on the Hoof said...

just have one what - one additional bailout?

interesting article:

"The decline of the wage system"

Blue said...

"CoLLapse" has been compared to other apocalyptic movies here:

(click the chart/image there)
...and it's great publicity because:

1. It made the Digg front page (meaning huge traffic)

2. CoLLapse is the only movie which isn't ridiculized, but regarded as 'frighteningly reasonable monologue of doom'.

Great publicity!

gamedog said...

LSE trading suspended due to technical fault

LONDON (SHARECAST) - All share trading on the LSE has been suspended following unspecified technical difficulties the exchange said this morning.

Trading was halted at 10.38am and all order-driven securities placed in an auction call period. All share prices currently to be considered indicative, an LSE spokesman added.

The FTSE 100 index was frozen at 5,264.97, down 99.84 points, or 1.9%.

sunrnr said...

"The Dollar Bubble" -

Unrepentantcowboy said...

Holiday music, from Iraq. A true story:

Sebastian Ronin said...

Okay, so where do "we" sit re ClimateGate? This thing is going to streamroll right into Copenhagen. Let's just say that the timing of the hack was timed, it would seem to me.

The ClimateGate Facebook is about to go viral.

OregonSurvivor said...

Score another 10 for CoLLapse!

RanD said...

From these quarters' perspective, Peddler on the Hoof's link to ENERGY BULLETIN's article "The Decline of the Wage System", by Damien Perrotin, provides the most significant information to arrive here at FTW since what so far appears to be the growing fact that MCR's CoLLapse is finally reaching its absolutely minimal/essential proper dispensation. If so:

Again, congratulations to us all!

Rice Farmer said...

It is WRONG to compare "Collapse" with so-called apocalyptic movies. The world of the apocalypse is part religion, part cheap thrill, a risk-free world we enter and leave at will. On the other hand, collapse is something repeated throughout history. It is a world into which we are dragged, kicking and screaming, by the inexorable flow of real events. It kills. Comparing "Collapse" to the likes of "2012" is an attempt to downplay and discredit MCR's message.

businessman said...

I had to laugh when the article on the main page said that in many countries politicians wouldn't be able to secure the mandate for more bailouts of their banks and financial institutions. Here in the USA the politicians will just give in to more requests for money from those institutions as the requests come in I'm sure. The auto industry had to come before Congress repeatedly to plead for their money, and our citizens were given town hall meetings to discuss whether we should spend more money on our proposed health care reform. But the banking and financial industries were basically just handed their money without very much discussion involved on the subject at all.

agape wins said...

Here is something/nothing for those of you who want something "concrete/USEFUL", no "PAP"!

Book titled "KISS YOUR DENTIST GOODBYE.", with a webb of;

Fits in with what I said; quote, from the book; " A man can succeed at almost anything for which he has unlimited
enthusiasm. Charles Schwab."
I have been doing her program for 3 mo. (with a little modification), & can say it works!
There are several flaws in her system, & a downside for the future. Think about it, I am positive someone can describe a system which will work in the third world, AND in the Future
we all face. Where will your "Dentist" be without his fancy, energy driven equipment, where will you find a new ToothBrush
every month or 3!?? Read what she writes, but also what she implies; the "Esoteric", that does not generate "Income".

I miss the input from RandD, & F.Kamilov, but the links from everyone generates a lot of thought.

A friend of mine in Casper, I have his "Mystic Mountain" in a framed 8X10, a great artist, thinker, someone to rely on!


gamedog said...

Sebastian: I'd say it's clear the original proponents of 'Co2 caused warming' are frauds. They have fiddled the temp chronology the "consensus" depends on, whilst weighting the playing field against opposing scientific opinion by conspiring in the peer review process, deleting data and avoiding FOI requests etc.

For a half decent quick review of climate gate, see the email threads AND the code threads Bish has put together...

FWIW Peter Taylor has about the best scientific explanations for climate change I've researched, he does a great presentation....

People should remember that "climate change" is not a hoax, the climate changes constantly with natural processes driven by the Sun, there are clear cycles. The Arctic IS melting! But, it's never lower than -20, so it's not melting because it's suddenly warmer than freezing point is it? Ocean warm/cold currents have a frequency, ocillation cycles, 10, 20, 30 year cycles that, at times like now in the arctic, can harmonise and peak, melting the ice from underneath. This is a normal cycle, as noted by the Chinese Navy in the 1600's when they circumnavigated the arctic as there was much less ice there during the MWP.

The Himalayan glaciers are receeding, but again the local temp never gets above freezing so it is nothing to do with warming, it is due to much less precipitation, an observed phenomena over decades.

The Environment movement has been hijacked by the PTB to sell carbon trading, a global tax whichever way we look at it.

I hope climategate helps re-frame much needed debate towards the real issues of resource and energy depletion, with an eye to possible global cooling which seems much more likely given sun spot cycle 24 is over 280 days late. We could well be facing another little ice age!


When I posted the LSE link above, meant to include the news about Dubai's financial crisis. It looked like the Dubai crisis caused a bit of a panic, once 100 points were wiped off LSE they seem to have flipped the "technical issue" close-down switch!

I thought it was the next leg down on us already! Whew!

Unrepentantcowboy said...

I agree with Rice Farmer's assessment, although I haven't seen Collapse (but have read the book that inspired it).

Collapse should not be compared to bull shit movies like 2012 or the Road. It's the real deal.

RanD said...

The lumping together of "Collapse" with trash-can apocalypticism is inevitable. This current world thrives on such incongruinations, and exemplify why Jesus went into a hissy fit over the merchants pushing their wares in the Temple. It's also why the works of early Judaean-Christian prophecy have been successfully reduced to something like mere fantacisms if not pure bullshit within many of the better minds amongst us, and turned many of today's otherwise sterling prophets into agnostics & atheists.

As for where we should sit re "ClimateGate"... Jeeeze! Relative to what we KNOW for sure IS going on (thanks to today's near sterling prophets), seems to me that that's an irrelevant red herring we ought just throw out the window and occasionally peek at to see what it's doing.

agape wins said...

This thread, "This is hot", is HOT, look here!

Michael Sloan said...

I haven't fully absorbed Climategate and do find it odd how little of it is entering the MSM... its the sort of sensational story that I would have thought would catch fire.

From what I have read on it, its not nearly as incriminating as the skeptics would have us believe. They are playing off some naive notion that science is done free of politics, which is totally absurd. Also the interpretation of data does leave room for adjustment, thats a natural part of 'science' as well, something the skeptics are feigning shock at.

The issue with boycotting a peer review publication is unseemly, but again, supposing that there are no power struggles within the scientific community is putting them on a pedestal that is unrealistic.

As George Monbiot mentioned in the Guardian, the real story is what is not in the emails, a clear conspiracy towards some clandestine agenda on global warming.

agape wins said...

When Life comes apart the unknown/unthinkable, becomes reality! Even when we should be giving thanks, Why a 6 yr. old??
"What led to this incident, we're not quite sure," said Pascarella. "It did not appear there was any altercation prior to this shooting."

Agape-AMAE, or Ego/Selfishness, chose in your subconscious/CONSIOUS?

F.Kamilov said...

And even more hotter... Dubai stock exchange crashes, gold and oil prices crash too.

plaiche said...

Happy Thanksgiving Mike. I'm grateful I found you and your work 7 years ago.

v said...

Dubai in deep water as ripples from debt crisis spread



Michael Sloan said...


So I read a bunch of things on the Bishop Hill site, not particularly impressed to be honest. What I really want to read is the source material, the emails. I could do without the amateur hypothetical of what it all means. We know that what was leaked were cherry-picked, and the sensational parts are what is the focus, but I want to see everything, or everything made available. If there are a handful of instances where interpretation of what is said can lead to unethical behavior, I would still like to see if it weighs up against x number of emails that behave emphatically towards there being no conspiracy, that even in secret, scientists are behaving as if the hockey stick is true.

Regarding peer review journals, I know of one email mentioning boycotting one journal on the basis of what they felt was the kind of scholastic work they publish... is that the basis for the belief that the entire peer review system is rigged when it comes to Climate Science? What if their concerns were valid (I don't know one way or the other, but suppose there was an argument there) they have every right to boycott publishing in a journal they believe is unscrupulous.

Context is everything: When I say I could kill for a chocolate bar, it's not premeditated murder.

I'm open to the possibility of there being a conspiracy, but both sides need to play fair here, and not get hysterical.

Michael Sloan said...

i.e. this Climategate email from Michael Mann:

"Dear All,
This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in confidence.
Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made. Its clear that
"Energy and Environment" is being run by the baddies--only a shill for industry would have
republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to "Climate Research" without
even editing it. Now apparently they're at it again...
My suggested response is:
1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called "journal" which is already known to
have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, that nobody we
know has been asked to "review" this so-called paper
2) to point out the claim is nonsense since the same basic result has been obtained by
numerous other researchers, using different data, elementary compositing techniques, etc.
Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, the usual
suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to deny that this has
any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for
the stunt that it is..
Thanks for your help,

This can and is being spun as if it a concerted effort to hide the TRUTH that "Climate Research" publishes, particularly with this article mentioned. But before you jump to that conclusion you need to verify that indeed the article mentioned is legitimate science. To prove the case to me, I need to see that evidence in the argument, but what I see time and time again in the skeptic writings is skipping those steps, and just going for the surface reading of what is being said.

Another question I need answered is how many people are supposed to be in on this conspiracy, because a cabal that are overpowering the entirety of the peer review system
must be pretty substantial.

Michael Sloan said...

On Climategate: These responses at RealClimate about the hacked emails are quite convincing on the surface, without reading the papers they reference ( and here, It rebukes a lot of the skeptical questions from the Bishop Hill site, in particular the argument that all data ought to be transparent, well, unless the World Meteorological Organization is in on this conspiracy too, the reason why it isn't is commercial, not sinister.

I'm starting to see why Climategate is a non-issue for MSM.

Even the catchphrase 'hide the decline', as this site shows, was not hidden, it was published in Nature here:

gamedog said...

Michael Sloan: The files are available from a bunch of places (e.g. there are links in Bish's comments), but 62mb of text will take you a good while to review, you are much better following the blogging community who are still dissecting the data, then confirming yourself as I have been doing for the last week.

The hockey team can circle the waggons with the help of the MSM keeping shtum. I think the emails can be waffled away with the extreme fire fighting thats going on atm, but that will not cover their asses in the longrun IMO, the code has been exposed, the science is flawed as they clearly fiddledd data to give the world their "hockey stick" therefore the whole "warming" premise is flawed.

Alarmists Hide Truth About (Lack Of) Global Warming

AJStrata discovered a file with two runs of CRU land temp data which show no global warming per the data laid out by country, and another CRU file showing their sampling error to be +/- 1°C or worse for most of the globe. Both CRU files show there has been no significant warming post 1960 era. While they claim to have "accurate proxies" down to 1/10ths of a degree, can you see how an error rate of +/- 1°C completely negates any claimed accuracy to 1/10th degree? Can you see how the claimed "global warming" of 0.6 degrees is completely arbitrary in a chronology of only +/- 1 degree accuracy? Thats a range of 2 degrees and they're claiming a 0.6 degree warming trend for 100 years!

BREAKING: NZ’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand's case, the figures published on NIWA's [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century.....But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result...Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend.

This will run and run.

However, I believe TPTB will still get their global carbon tax one way or another. This will end up being another dead end keeping people tied up debating endlessly instead of seeing the big picture. It's diverting the attention of all those environmentalists who now shrill the AGW line for the PTB, all those activists campaigning for carbon taxes instead of real environmental issues like deforestation, real pollution etc. win win and win again for TPTB.

Did you watch the Peter Taylor presentation? What were your thoughts on it?


Sebastian Ronin said...

gamedog, re "It's diverting the attention of all those environmentalists who now shrill the AGW line for the PTB, all those activists campaigning for carbon taxes instead of real environmental issues like deforestation, real pollution etc. win win and win again for TPTB."

But attempting to get Greens to see this can be more of a challenge than going up against the thickest Peak Oil denier...which most Greens also have to be (or else sacrifice the philosophical prance towards the Green nirvana). The jig was up last May when the Bilderberg attendance list came out for the '09 meeting. On it was that of Cem Ozdemir, Co-Leader of the German Greens. IMO, it signalled the beginning of the end for political Greens. That they have been neutralized and co-opted is obvious to anyone with the slightest degree of political savvy...which would happen to exclude most Greens.

businessman said...

gamedog...Thanks again for more great info and analysis on global warming.

We can all observe how the mainstream media won't even allow credible scientists to air their opinions on refuting the case for global warming. And with this being the case, there has to be an underlying agenda going on.

There's simply too much money to be made off of global warming by the people who really run things, and these people don't care about whether or not it's for's just too big of an opportunity for them to suck a lot more money out of all of our collective pockets.

When 31,000 U.S. scientists have signed a petition declaring that global warming is a fraud, and the media won't even mention this and won't allow any of these scientists tell us about their own opinions on the subject, there's definitely a major underlying agenda going on.

eyeballs said...

This planet is being wrecked by human activity. If it turns out that sunspots, not carbon, are responsible for Arctic melting, you still have to concede that, in addition to many other problems, we now face food uncertainty and species loss due to climate change. Instead of arguing about what we cannot know (if the PhD climatologists are divided, how can we know?) we should face some facts.

Givens are:

Unlike the relatively stable last two centuries, during which our huge growth took place, we now have an unpredictable climate, one which can bankrupt insurance companies, destroy grain reserves and drive up food prices;

The Earth is buckling under human activity, especially the activities often used to illustrate the horrors of global warming -- coal burning (responsible for mercury in the entire US fresh water fish population, as well as mountaintop removal and many other sins); the automobile and its attendant roads, suburbs, parking lots and resource exploitation; the meat industry (which accounts for high grain prices, deforestation of the amazon, massive pollution near stockyards and factory farms, etc.); the cancerous growth of factories (most of which produce unnecessary items like processed foods, cosmetics, lawnmowers, pesticides, missiles, business suits, massage chairs, snowmobiles, etc., ad naseum) and the concurrent growth of human population, increasingly compacted into cancerous cities.

Based on past expectations, humans have packed themselves and their most important activities heavily along low-lying coastal areas which -- even in the absence of catastrophic rises in sea levels -- are now threatened by ever bigger storms and tides. And ironically, our best hopes for future oil supplies also seem to be located in this danger zone.

It does not seem unlikely to me that climate would be affected by human activity. In fact, the climate change deniers like to point out that melting glaciers are the result of dryer conditions brought on by clearcutting in Tibet and around Kilimanjaro. That's human activity. The drought in the Amazon is also blamed on deforestation.

But even if we shouldn't expect a four degree rise in temperatures any time soon, we have a terrible mess on our hands. Rather than trade carbon credits, which does nothing to actually mitigate harmful human activity, we need to powerdown right now. We need to decrease, not increase our economy, and that means (to most first world people) having less of an easy time. It will translate into "less fun", in the minds of the public.

Of course they won't like that. It's like telling someone to quit drinking or get off drugs or go on a diet. Whoa, that's crampin' m'style, bro. And as long as the public rejects this needed regimen, politicians are going to have to initiate demand destruction in sneaky ways, forcing up the price of oil, letting the economy crash a little at a time to stop rampant growth, and by other measures which would horrify the public if they could believe in them.

In order to respond to the uncertainty of climate change as well as the CERTAINTY of other substantial problems, the public must be induced to see the problem so intimately as to be unable to escape from the vision. The people must come to volutarily change our behavior, or it will be changed for us. The latter method implies authoritarian government and probably a permanent class division. The former holds out some hope for egalitarianism and popular participation in government.

Therefore, our most sacred responsibility is to reach as many people as possible with the twin notions of cooperation and powerdown. Most will not get it till far into the game, but reaching those we can, through example as much as through polemic, offers the best hope for an endurable 21st century. By living the change ourselves, and making it available to our neighbors, we change from helpless victims to creators of the future.

Sebastian Ronin said...

Here's a very moving vid (I found to be) by James Corbett on the fallout and blowback that the environmental movement is taking.

Michael Sloan said...


I am a third of the way through Peter Taylor's presentation, and just wanted to make one correction:

He says the global warming activists do not acknowledge the effect of clouds and that is just untrue. Now I am unable to parse the detailed science of the matter but, for example, in the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis report, you can see clouds are factored in, some eight years before this presentation took place:

Now how is a layman to process the information given within, by both skeptics and activists? At this level of detail, beyond the appeal of direct observation, we must rely on expert consensus. If, indeed, the peer review system is broken, than science is broken, you cannot un-break it with a few scattered groups appealing to an alternative view.

I would like to see numbers of skeptics vs. activists, and then I would like to see those that can be directly shown to be financed by interest groups which make their claims inadmissible, and have them removed from the tally, and then observe the ratio. If science has been hijacked for political ends, than no alternative science can exist in its place, or at least no credible science, the foundation no longer exists to determine credibility. Its not a matter of waving some data around as proof, it gains its authenticity through consensus, through peer review. Inquiry into human-factored climate change is not empirical, or empirical enough to be able to bypass this requirement, it MUST have the system in place to be valuable. The skeptics are tearing the temple down atop them, there is no alternative authority.

gamedog said...

Michael Sloan:I think he was referring to clouds in the computer models, where they are not factored in, these models are the foundation stone of AGW, using positive feedback factors when it has been shown there is a negative feedback from clouds (Linzden et al).

There was a time I was convinced AGW was a threat. I wish I could point you to one single piece of evidence but it's a long trawl before you see the big picture.

Consider the funding the AGW lot get via the IPCC, an gravy train THEY concepted, this is not about science it's about power and money.

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

This site covers both sides, and contains all the links you'll need to form an informed decision.

When the foundations are rotten, the temple must be torn down, or as you say, the foundation no longer exists to determine credibility.