Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Once upon a time, the meetings of the World Economic Forum in Davos were gatherings of free-market economists and entrepreneurs. Not any more. Predatory corporatism and pietistic étatisme have moved in and captured the Davos event. Their dismal handmaiden, the Thermageddon cult, was not slow to follow.
This year’s WEF annual “insight report” on global risks bizarrely rates “climate change” and “extreme weather events” as two of the three global threats with the greatest combined impact and likelihood (Fig. 1).
Figure 1: As the “climate crisis” fades to a record low, the imagined threats from “climate change” and “extreme weather” have soared to a record high (top right) among the profiteers of doom in Davos.
As climate science becomes frozen in record Antarctic ice, as The Pause grows ever longer, and as the IPCC (another international bunch of crooks for which the racketeer-influenced criminal organization that is modern Switzerland provides a jurisdiction-free safe haven) slashes its near-term predictions of global warming to a record low, the Thermageddon cult has silently captured the World Economic Forum.
Remarkably, the date of the capture is highly visible (Fig. 2). Before 2011, environmental “threats” did not figure among the WEF’s top five global risks by impact (top) and likelihood (bottom). From 2011 onward, the green panels marking supposed environmental “risks” startlingly proliferate.
Figure 2. The WEF’s top five global risks by impact (top) and by likelihood (bottom) have been dominated by imagined environmental catastrophes (green panels) since 2011. Diagram based on the WEF’s 2014 Global Risks report.
Yet there was no particular reason for alarm about our effect on the climate in 2011. What had happened? Perhaps the usual suspects, having failed in their big push for a total shutdown of the West at Copenhagen in 2009, looked around for new international bodies to capture and eventually lit upon the politically-naïve World Economic Forum.
I use the word “naïve” advisedly. For the Davos risk report, even by the low standards set by climate-change bed-wetters everywhere, is an exceptionally hysterical and overblown document. The WEF has gone full stupid.
Its pompous global-risks report says: “Environmental risks also feature prominently in this year’s list, appearing as three of the top 10 global risks of greatest concern.
“Water crises, for instance, rank as the third highest concern. This illustrates a continued and growing awareness of the global water crisis as a result of mismanagement and increased competition for already scarce water resources from economic activity and population growth. Coupled with extreme weather events such as floods and droughts, which appears sixth on the list, the potential impacts are real and happening today.
“Climate change, ranked fifth on the list, is the key driver of such uncertain and changing weather patterns, causing an increased frequency of extreme weather events such as floods and droughts.”
Now, the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report makes it quite plain that one cannot yet attribute any extreme-weather event to “global warming”. It specifically states that there is no discernible additional risk of cyclones, storms, droughts, and floods. And analyses such as Dr. Ryan Maue’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index confirm this. Yet the report wails, “Typhoon Haiyan took a heavy toll on the Philippines, even as global leaders debated climate change in Warsaw in November 2013.”
It moans on: “Climate change features among the five most likely and most impactful risks. Among other environmental risks, extreme weather events are considered the second most likely, and water crises also appear high on the list.”
And the solution? “This suggests a pressing need for better public information about the potential consequences of environmental threats, given that collective action will need to be based on common understanding.”
Here we go again. The Davos Thermageddonites blame the continuing failure of the West to shut itself down on insufficient propaganda to convince the public that global warming that has not happened caused extreme weather that has.
The fashionable nonsense continues with a whine about third-world countries being most at risk: “Drought and flood could increasingly ravage the economies of poorer countries, locking them more deeply into cycles of poverty.”
The report winds itself up into the usual mannered frenzy with a panel luridly entitled “An Emerging Spectrum of Catastrophic Risks: Existential Threats”, contributed by the “Global Agenda Council on Catastrophic Risks”, of which more in a moment
“Climate change”, says the Global Armageddon Commissariat, “could tip into a self-reinforcing, runaway phase of rising temperatures.”
Er, no, it can’t. I’m not sure that even the holy books of IPeCaC have ever suggested that runaway temperature feedback is even a possibility. In any event, elementary considerations in the mathematics of feedback amplification make runaway feedback an impossibility.
Figure 3 shows the plot of the IPCC’s 2007 estimates of climate sensitivity at CO2 doubling: y axis) against loop gain γ (x axis). The IPCC’s 3.26 [2.0, 4.5] K interval of estimated sensitivities is marked, showing its implicit loop gain values 0.64 [0.42, 0.74].
Figure 3. Climate sensitivity at CO2 doubling (y axis) against feedback loop gains γ = λ0f on the interval [–1, 3] (x axis), where λ0 is the Planck sensitivity parameter 0.31 K W–1 m2 and f is the sum in W m–2 K–1 of all unamplified temperature feedbacks. The interval of climate sensitivities given in IPCC (2007) is shown as a red-bounded region; a more physically realistic interval, consistent with Lindzen & Choi (2009, 2011) is bounded in green. In electronic circuitry, the singularity at γ = +1 has a physical meaning: in the climate, it has none. In the climate, therefore, the feedback-amplification equation requires a damping term that is absent in the models.
Process engineers designing electronic circuits intended not to oscillate adopt a maximum value γ = 0.1 for the loop gain (and usually an order of magnitude below this). Thus, in a stable circuit, everything to the right of the blue line is designed out.
For the past 750 million years, the climate has behaved as a stable circuit. The temperature-feedback loop gain cannot much have exceeded +0.1, for throughout that time, according to Scotese (1999) (and see Zachos, 2005), global mean surface temperature has varied by only 8 K, or 3%, either side of the long-run mean.
In the past 420,000 years the near-constancy of global temperature has been still more impressive (Fig. 4). Absolute global temperature reconstructed from the Vostok ice cores fluctuated by less than 3 K, or 1%, either side of the mean.
Figure 4. Global temperature reconstruction over the past 420,000 years derived from δ18O anomalies in air trapped in ice strata at Vostok station, Antarctica. To render the anomalies global, the values of the reconstructed anomalies (y axis) have been divided by the customary factor 2 to allow for polar amplification. Diagram based on Petit et al. (1999). Note that all four previous interglacial warm periods, at intervals of 80,000-125,000 years, were at least as warm as the current warm period. Data source: Petit et al. (1999).
Indeed, the feedback-amplification may be the wrong equation altogether. For in an electronic circuitry the striking singularity at γ = +1 describes a physical reality. At that point, the voltage – which had been striving to reach positive inifinity – flicks from the positive to the negative rail. In the climate, however, no such transition is possible. Temperature feedbacks that have been as strongly net-positive as the IPCC fancifully imagines they are cannot suddenly drive global temperature down rather than up. Besides, there is such a thing as negative voltage, but there is no such thing as negative temperature.
In short, a damping term is necessary to permit the Bode feedback-amplification equation to be applied to the climate at all. But any value sufficient to keep the loop gain well shy of the singularity would limit climate sensitivity to the interval marked “Probable” in green on Fig. 3, implying little more than 1 K global warming per CO2 doubling. There is, therefore, no climate problem: and, even if there were, the runaway feedback eagerly imagined by the WEF cannot exist, does not exist, and has shown not the slightest sign of having existed in the past 750 million years.
The WEF rants on to blame the war in Syria on global warming: “For example, while there is no doubt a number of reasons caused the devastating civil war, recent research is unearthing the hidden role that climate change, extreme weather events and a water crisis also played in Syria. Between 2006 and 2011, up to 60% of Syria’s land experienced one of the worst long-term droughts in modern history. Together with the mismanagement of water resources, this drought led to total crop failure for 75% of farmers, forcing their migration and increasing tensions in urban cities that were already experiencing economic insecurity and instability.”
That passage nicely illustrates the problem posed by the lack of anything that our ancestors from the late Middle Ages to the Second World War would have recognized as an education on the part of the “world leaders” who flatter themselves by attending the Davos junket.
For if every drought is blamed on global warming, and every flood is blamed on global warming, and every heatwave is blamed on global warming, and every circumpolar-vortex cold snap is blamed on global warming, two conclusions follow. First, that global warming has been relentlessly increasing for 4567 million years, entirely accounting for every climatic event that has ever occurred, is now occurring, or will ever occur. Yet if global warming has been increasing for that long, how can we tell whether the small warming that ceased 17 years 4 months ago was anything much to do with us?
Secondly, if every change in the weather is held to be our fault, how can the hypothesis that manmade warming is a problem be falsified? A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is little more than a curiosity. It is not science, and no policy action may legitimately be taken on the basis of unless and until it is first modified to make it testable and is then tested and not disproven.
At least the Davos dirge admits, albeit in a roundabout way, that its take on climate science goes beyond even that of the generally extremist IPCC: “The risk multiplier that climate change presents to water shortages, biodiversity loss, ocean damage and deforestation also creates a complex ‘heterarchy’, rather than a simple hierarchy, of environmental risks, often with non-linear patterns of change and self-fuelling feedback mechanisms. This heterarchy is not contained within IPCC models, but could encompass the greatest economic risk of all from climate change.” Runaway feedbacks again.
The report maunders on: “Climate change could tip into a self-reinforcing, runaway phase of rising temperatures”. Runaway feedbacks for the third time. It ain’t gonna happen. Back to Process Engineering 101, boys!
But the Wild Extremists and Fanatics are not done yet. They go on to talk of climate change as threatening “to make the Earth increasingly uninhabitable”. Oh, pur-leaze! Some 90% of the world’s species of flora and fauna live in the tropics, where the last time I looked (on a recent visit to the avian paradise that is Colombia) the weather is somewhat warmer than at the poles, where around 1% of the world’s species live.
An elementary knowledge of high-school geography ought to have been enough to make the Davos dunderheads think twice before musing that the Earth would become “increasingly uninhabitable” as it warmed.
The “Global Agenda Council on Climate Change” contributes a second box to the report, this time entitled “Poor Countries Are Losing Ground in the Race to Adapt to a Changing Climate”
It says: “The year 2014 is likely to be crucial for addressing climate risks, a point made by United Nations (UN) climate chief Christiana Figueres at the Warsaw Climate Change Conference. Countries made only limited progress on issues such as emissions reduction, loss and damage compensation, and adaptation. Greater progress is urgently needed to create incentives and mechanisms to finance action against climate change while efforts are made to keep temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.”
There is no scientific basis for the notion that global temperature in 1750 was ideal and that anything more than 2 Celsius degrees above that temperature is less than ideal. What is the ideal global temperature interval, and on what scientific basis is that interval determined? The WEF fails to enlighten us on either question.
Who has captured the World Economic Forum? One clue lies in the membership of the “Global Agenda Council on Climate Change”, a title that sounds uncannily like one of the thousands of KGB-funded front groups furtively set up throughout the West by the Soviet Union as its sock-puppets to peddle disinformation in the bad old days.
The members of the Commissariat are Swiss Re (a reinsurance broker as notorious as Lloyds of London for exploiting non-existent global warming to talk up premiums); Notre Dame Global Adaptation Institute (taxpayer-funded me-too academic rent-seekers); Yvo De Boer, KPMG International Cooperative (he once ran the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change); Yara International (“sustainable agriculture”); Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (taxpayer-funded); Carnegie Institution for Science (me-too); Christiana Figueres, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (’nuff said); Connie Hedegaard, European Commission (’nuff said); Tokyo Institute of Technology (taxpayer-funded); HSBC Asia Pacific (me-too); Deutsche Bank (long-term global-warming fanatics); Aecom Technology Corporation (architects and builders “Dedicated To Making The World A Better Place”); Qatar Foundation (they hosted the 2012 UN climate summit at which I inadvertently represented Burma); Ministry of Water and Environmental Affairs, South Africa (taxpayer-funded); Federal Ministry of Germany for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (taxpayer-funded); Baker & McKenzie (“Global Corporate Sustainability” law firm); World Bank (unelected international racket profiteering from every fashionable scare); and Climate Group (the usual suspects, including New York State).
This rogues’ gallery is a revealing illustration of the convergence of large corporations and taxpayer-funded groups who have adopted an extremist stance on the climate question not because it is scientific but because it is fashionable.
Finally, Fig. 5 gives the list of the Top Ten Global Risks as imagined by the World Economic Forum.
Figure 5. The WEF’s Top Ten Global Risks. Its report says: “Climate change, ranked fifth on the list (see Box 1.4), is the key driver of such uncertain and changing weather patterns, causing an increased frequency of extreme weather events such as floods and droughts. It is important to consider the combined implications of these environmental risks on key development and security issues, such as food security, and political and social instability, ranked eighth and 10th respectively.”
It is difficult to decide whether the authors of this childishly extreme document genuinely believe the anti-scientific fantasies and fatuities they peddle or whether the global classe politique has at last realized that global warming is never going to occur at anything like the previously-predicted rate. If CO2 goes on rising and the temperature goes on not rising, everyone will know the governing class was wrong when it told us it was 95% confident it was right. So its best escape route is to bully scientifically-illiterate governments into vastly reducing global CO2 emissions and then to claim that the continuing failure of the world to warm is their noble achievement rather than what would have happened anyway.
Notice how in Fig 1, corruption and crime are listed as having only moderate likelihood, with moderate to low impact. Problems with literacy and public health and sanitation, don’t even get noticed.
name 1 country with good public health and sanitation, good education, low corruption and low crime that people would not want to live in.
now name 1 country with poor public health and sanitation, poor education, high corruption and high crime that is considered a good place to live.
If you get the basics right, the rest of the problems all fall into place.
Mr. Born raises the following question: “While it is true that positive feedback in electronic circuits tends to result in oscillations, I’m told that the reason usually is that the loop imposes a frequency-dependent phase shift. In the absence of this (in electrical circuits, essentially unavoidable) feature, wouldn’t the output just be pinned to one or the other rail?”
The answer is No. The type of oscillation caused by the loop gain transiently exceeding unity is mandated by the feedback-amplification equation. The overall feedback gain factor is the reciprocal of the difference between unity and the closed-loop gain. I was interested to know whether the singularity evident at a loop gain of unity represented a physical reality, so I consulted a doctor of process engineering, who in turn consulted textbooks and scientific papers to confirm his understanding that as the feedback increases above unity the current flicks from the positive to the negative rail.
There is no equivalent physical reality in the climate. For instance, if column water vapor were to increase sufficiently to push the loop gain above unity, the positive forcing caused by the additional water vapor would not suddenly become a negative forcing. Accordingly, though feedbacks exist in the climate, they are not correctly modeled by the Bode mutual-amplification equation. Though that equation is neatly derived in Hansen (1981), Hansen failed to notice that the singularity in an electronic circuit has no analogue in the real climate. It is the wrong equation.
The snidely pseudonymous “Village Idiot”, who calls itself an idiot and spares me the need to do so, says that calling for criminal penalties for scientists committing criminal offenses is a debating tone in the “gutter”. But why should scientists who have caused massive losses to the poorest by arguing relentlessly for increases in their fuel and power charges, so that people in cold countries are dying of the cold because they can no longer afford to heat their homes, be immune from prosecution for fraud?
One or two other commenters have said my style is too vigorous for them. If the best malt whisky gives you a hangover, don’t drink it. If you do drink it, don’t whinge about it.
“Temperature feedbacks that have been as strongly net-positive as the IPCC fancifully imagines they are cannot suddenly drive global temperature down rather than up. ”
Yes they can.
By their models cutting CO2 *below* long term level SHOULD result in catastrophic descent into an ice age and snowball earth,
Keywords Impact and Likelihood should trigger the recall of the Pareto Distribution.
Steve has it right. The biggest risk is the people and institutions represented at Davos. What a meaningless bag of wasted wind and news print. Other than a free ski trip what good is being done at these confabs. I nominate Dennis Rodman as chair.
Ed Hinton Says
Severe Income Disparity” and the politics is clear. Climate change politics has really always been about redistribution
Ed, don’t fall for this – the aim is nothing short of world subjugation under the UN via energy policy – it is absolutely not about redistribution – that would be virtuous, that too like climate change is simply an excuse to impose the preferred government, an unelected socialist world government. If redistribution to the poor was the aim, exactly why would they have us pouring billions into burning food in our cars or squandering billions on solar panels instead of feeding the poor and building cyclone shelters? Climate change and social injustice are also the excuses the UN uses to siphon Billions from nations in order to fund it’s world governance campaign.
Naively of course it all sounds wonderful, – world peace under a environmentally sensitive socialist world government, at last – until you wonder what might happen if you don’t happen to like socialist world government, exactly where do you go?
I think the UN needs to be dissolved and then rebuilt – and completely rethought in the process, it needs a constitution and rules, instead of the current lawless morass.
@DirkH – Thank you very, very much for that link to http://www.globeinternational.org/. Turpitude so thick that I had to run for the sick bucket. Ugh.
“This illustrates a continued and growing awareness of the global water crisis as a result of mismanagement and increased competition for already scarce water resources from economic activity and population growth.”
Water is local. What they want is global management of water. They imply they can do a better job of it. Billions will die.
The greatest risk to Man is these people trying to sell communism to the world. The climate change boogeyman is intended to get us to accept turning power over to them.
Tony Abbot’s speech at Davos.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-23/tony-abbott-delivers-keynote-speech-at-world/5216324
Mr. Mynhagen is uncomfortable at my calling modern Switzerland a racketeer-influenced criminal organization, and points out how radically democratic it is. I agree on its wonderful democracy and consequent political stability, and have been trying for many years to persuade my fellow-countrymen that a similarly radical democracy would be the right thing for Britain (albeit that while we remain in the European tyranny-by-clerk democracy is altogether denied to us).
However, when I was on my honeymoon in Barbados, my lovely wife took a call from the British police, wanting to ask about my Swiss bank account. She replied that I had not told her about it and she would be asking me questions about it too. She summoned me from the swimming pool where Anthony Eden had spent the summers in his later years and handed me the phone.
The police told me a bank account in my name existed at Credit Suisse in Zurich. I asked how much money was in the account (of whose existence I was unaware) and whether I could spend it all at once. I was told there was $17,000 in it, and no, I couldn’t have any of the money because the account was not mine. I suggested that the police should investigate a City of London regulatory authority that I had recently heavily defeated on behalf of consultancy clients.
Sure enough, a rogue regulator had opened the account in the hope of discrediting me. The entire regulatory authority was shut down – permanently – a few months later, and its functions were transferred to what is now the Financial Services Authority.
I wrote a furious letter to Credit Suisse in Zurich, asking the bank to make every detail of the account available to the authorities. A curt letter came, signed by two directors of the bank, refusing to hand over any information to the authorities. Their pretext for this refusal was that the account was not mine. They did not apologize for having failed to make even the most elementary checks before allowing the account to be opened.
Ever since then, I have had no trust whatsoever in any Swiss bank or regulatory authority, and still less trust in the Swiss Government, which has relentlessly looked the other way in the face of organized financial crime for decades. Geneva remains the best place in the world for international criminal organizations to establish themselves. For instance, the IPCC is headquartered there. Many of its findings are not merely matters of scientific dispute but outright fraud. Consider, for instance, the temperature graph from 1850-2005 with four successively steepening trend-lines on it and the bogus conclusion that the rate of warming is accelerating and we are to blame. A barrister whom I consulted informed me that, in the light of the IPCC’s refusal to correct this graph, its conclusion was unquestionably fraud. I reported the matter to the Swiss authorities and did not even receive so much as an acknowledgement.
Switzerland is the one country in the world that can be absolutely relied upon not to investigate frauds perpetrated by criminal gangs such as the IPCC that are headquartered in its territory. If Mr. Mynhagen would like to convince me that Switzerland is no longer so indulgent of criminal activity that it is, in effect, an accessory after the fact, perhaps he would have a go at persuading the Swiss authorities to investigate the particular instance of IPCC fraud that I have drawn to their attention.
That graph also indicates chronic diseases as having the lowest (combined) impact and likelihood.
These people are sick.
All this dangerous man-made global warming alarmism is never going to go away until the UN and various international governments have achieved their goal of international controls over fossil fuel energy use, which I believe will now be accomplished with the support of President Obama who does not give a damn about the implications or consequences.
In our little canton we keep working for another 1989. “When the world woke up from history” The job of human liberty is never done.
Kurt Myrhagen brings up an important point, “Take a closer look at your home turf, with tax havens in the Caribbean, Cayman and Channel Islands before you judge others.”
Over here the Republicans have proposed the first plank for their 2014 campaign platform, the repeal of the law closing the overseas tax havens that the billionaires use. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act passed in early 2010 has been repeatedly delayed in implementation, and might go into effect by the end of this year. Republicans are adamant that this FATCA will not happen despite the $300b annual cost to taxpayers, and probably will try to get it further delayed or crippled. Billionaires have made off with trillions over the years this way so you can see why the fiscal conservatives want to keep from plugging this drain. Billionaires are on their way to becoming trillionaires because Conservatives are ‘Perfectly Okay’ with it.
The Davos list of priorities ought to consider the following parameter:
For all the problems foreseen, one should consider whether human action has a reasonable chance of success: actually addressing or mitigating the calamity itself.
Let’s assume there is an atmospheric Climate Sensitivity to doubling of atmospheric CO2 > 0ºC (most would agree this is the case). If we can go 15+ years with record CO2 emissions and unabated increase in CO2 concentration, yet have zero statistically significant atmospheric warming, then we can also have a reduction in human CO2 emissions (equivalent to the increase over those 15+ years) without any measurable effect on climate either. The longer the hiatus, the greater the uncertainty inherent in any “mitigation policies.”
That this is apparently not even brought up in the discussion demonstrates how much of an Emperor’s New Clothes dilemma the entire Climate Policy discourse has become. Reducing one’s “Climate Footprint” is an element of Green Religious Dogma, nothing else. Not paying lip service to it would be akin to failing to genuflect to Gaia.
Kurt in Switzerland
When they say “Global governance failure” is the no. 5 risk, are they acknowledging that the idea of global governance is always destined to fail? Nah, probably not.
On the long answer of the Lord to Mr. Mynhagen:
it’s somehow disappointing that an argument ad anecdotum(is being used: I’ve had one bad experience with one Swiss bank therefore the whole country is full of racketeers.
It sounds like: temperature has risen once, therefore climate change is going on.
Strewth, what a rogues’ gallery.
Between them, not the financial acumen to run a whelk stall, nor the probity to be trusted to be sent for the fish and chips with the correct change.
How much longer are we going to have to put up with these buffoons?
How did we manage to stitch ourselves up with them in the first place?
Michael says:
January 24, 2014 at 4:51 am
Well, since YOU personally and deliberately are responsible for the excess deaths of 25,000 innocent elderly and low-income people in the UK last year who died due to YOUR preferred energy policies of restrictive use and high prices,
and, because YOU and your boss personally benefit from the wages and travel money and laboratories and computer time and bureaucracies formed specifically because of YOUR fear of potential future beneficial climate warming, perhaps YOU personally should go live in a cave using nothing but the flint and deadwood you personally can gather from the forest floor.
YOU are the ones who claim climate change is “not happening” (blaming what is “not happening” on CO2 alone in your hatred and fear of today’s world) in our natural world of constant change. It is today’s climate realists who point out that YOUR equations and projections and fears have proved false every time under every circumstance.
What then is this “major threat” you fear from climate change? Loss of your job?
Phil says, “Budget Deficits and Foreign Debt (or Debt Service Ratio) did not make the top ten list at a world economic summit.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-biggest-myths-in-economics-2014-1
The US government is running out of money and must pay back the national debt.
The national debt is a burden that will ruin our children’s futures.
The Fed was created by a secret cabal of bankers to wreck the US economy.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-biggest-myths-in-economics-2014-1
Debt is really only important when the billionaires that own Standard & Poors wants to punish a country for raising taxes on the rich. Lest the peasants figure out that a ‘New Deal’ would work great about now.
What is Hyper-Inflation really? It is the printing of massive amounts of money, and distributing it to people who will spend it to buy goods and services that are in ever shorter supply. This drives up prices in a fantastic way, but only if you keep printing money in ever increasing amounts. That’s a problem we don’t have. There is really downward pressure on wages and that inhibits spending even if the workers have some money. We have far more goods than people can buy, you should expect prices to actually fall some before long. When you start seeing empty shelves at big box stores then you can worry.
Most of the $75b (was 85b) per month in new money that the Federal Reserve (a private bank) is printing is going to people that already spend millions each month to maintain their ‘lifestyle’. Buying a new large Italian yacht or new French helicopter isn’t going to produce any inflation. Most likely the rich just launder their increased cash flow through a Cayman Islands bank that they may even own & that is really held in New York so as to not pay any taxes, but not actually buy anything.
The real goal of the Fed is to convince the super rich that the Fed is printing sufficient money so that it will lead to inflation and cause their wealth decline in real terms. The idea being that the rich will need to actually get out and ‘make’ some money, to engage in some sort of real commerce that will ‘inadvertently’ do us ‘little people’ some good.
Kurt Myrhagen: Thank you for your polite response. As with everything on the blog, it has improved my education. I do take your point about other tax havens and, when they are supporting the kleptocracy of tyrannical despots (tautology?). I am as strongly against them as those Swiss functions (that are left) that also give them aid.
HSBC stands for Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Corporation… Boy this guy really really does not like HSBC. link There may be some tidbits of truth among the dreck.
Dean Boulding says….
It is a BLOG for goodness sake not a world literature class.
Phil says: @ur momisugly January 24, 2014 at 1:14 am
Budget Deficits and Foreign Debt (or Debt Service Ratio) did not make the top ten list at a world economic summit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is quite interesting is it not?
It is AMAZING that the World Economic Forum swept under the rug the biggest story in economics this year and instead presented the world the rotting corpse of a seventeen year dead ‘Cause’ especially when the IMF hastily changed their meeting date to coincide with the closing of the US government
Here are a couple of articles on the report from that meeting:
Another article says:
IMF REPORT: http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/fm1302.pdf
Peter Kirby says: @ur momisugly January 24, 2014 at 1:21 am
Lord Monckton, semi hysterical ranting, while entertaining, does nothing to enhance the importance of your message.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If we don’t laugh at the antics of our would be Masters we might be tempted to gather up feathers and tar.