To end the week…

  • How to get our new advisory ‘for no extra charge’
  • New podcast
  • Extended mailbag

To round out the week, we have an extended mailbag today.

We’ve covered the issue of climate change a lot over the past week. And so it only seems right to round it off (for the most part) in today’s Port Phillip Insider.

Given the responses we’ve received on the subject, we thought we would devote most of today’s letter to climate change.

We know, our beat is, and should be, the world of finance. But frankly, it would be a dull day, a dull job for your editor, and a dull read for you if all we talked about was stock market swings.

After all, there’s so much more to write and read about. And it shouldn’t be forgotten that, quite often, non-financial affairs can have as much, or sometimes more, of an impact on your investments and wealth than financial affairs.

We don’t need to look far for an example: the US presidential election.

Climate change is another example. We don’t shirk from addressing climate change head on. Nor do we shirk from addressing the fanatical climate change lobbyists head on, either.

The simple truth is that climate change isn’t an environmental movement at all. The so-called ‘science’ of climate change is an attempt at social engineering and wealth confiscation on a grand scale.

Globalists and elites within governments, the United Nations and lobby groups are intent on causing the mass destruction of the middle and working classes. They figure they can best do this by unifying and convincing the world that a devastating climatic event is on the cards.

In doing so, they can convince the world that all manner of social engineering and tax programs are necessary to prevent the worst from happening.

They can issue edicts saying that governments should tax supposedly greenhouse gas-causing foods — primarily meat and dairy.

They can say that people should be taxed more for using personal transport, such as cars, thereby encouraging people to use government-run public transport.

They can say that taxes must rise, and that cash must be banned. All in the attempt to restrict personal freedoms and personal finances. All in the attempt to put more power in the hands of governments and lobbyists.

That’s how it is. That’s how we see it. And that’s how we tell it.

We know this may not be your cup of tea, and that you may just want to know today’s closing share price for BHP Billiton Ltd [ASX:BHP] — it’s $26.50, by the way.

But we figure we wouldn’t be doing our job properly if, along with the financial side of things, we didn’t give you what we consider to be the real story on the non-financial side of the world.

With that, a quick glance at the markets, and then on with the show…

Markets

Overnight, the US markets were closed in observance of the Thanksgiving Day holiday.

In Europe, the Euro Stoxx 50 index closed up 8.46 points, or 0.28%. The FTSE 100 gained 0.17%, while Germany’s DAX index added 0.25%.

In Asian markets, Japan’s Nikkei 225 index is down 28.73 points, or 0.16%. China’s CSI 300 index is up 0.13%.

In Australia, the S&P/ASX 200 is up 22.72 points, or 0.41%.

On the commodities markets, West Texas Intermediate crude oil is trading for US$47.95 per barrel. Brent crude is US$49.00 per barrel.

Gold is US$1,182.54 (AU$1,595.03) per troy ounce. Silver is US$16.30 (AU$21.99) per troy ounce.

The Aussie is worth 74.12 US cents.

How to get our new advisory ‘for no extra charge’

We’re not kidding when we say the current Alliance membership intake will close down on Wednesday.

This is your best chance to get lifetime access to 15 of our current investment services, plus every new service we introduce in the future. And I mean every new service.

The only services excluded from Alliance membership are Microcap Trader and Quant Trader. That’s because we have to limit the number of people who can access those services.

But aside from that, Alliance membership gives you access to everything else. That will include a new short-selling service I’d like to launch next year. The recruitment process will begin in the next day or so.

When we launch that service, it will likely come with a ‘sticker price’ of at least $1,999. But it could be more than that. The short-selling service I have in mind is designed for long-term and strategic investors.

It will be the kind of service where the analyst forensically picks apart the financials of ‘zombie’ companies, or those with ‘out-of-touch-with-reality’ valuations.

It won’t be about taking or making short-term trades; it will be about making long-term trades…the types of trades the big Wall Street fund managers, like Jim Chanos and Bill Ackmann, make.

They don’t trade in and out to make a few cents on the dollar. For better or worse, they trade in…then wait…then add to their positions…then wait some more…and then (assuming all goes to plan) they cash out with a monster gain.

That’s what we’re after. And those who are part of our top available Alliance package will get this new service for no extra charge, as soon we launch it.

To join the Alliance, and to see exactly what it entails, go here.

New podcast

We’ve just released our second podcast as part of our hijack of Callum Newman’s The Newman Show.

From next week, you’ll be able to tune in to our own podcast, hosted by me and fellow colleague James Woodburn. We’re calling it: ‘Financial Anarchists’.

Just go to iTunes or Google Play and search for it. Then, subscribe and wait for the next episode to download to your podcast player.

In this week’s episode, we invited Resource Speculator analyst Jason Stevenson to discuss the hot topic of the week — climate change.

Extended mailbag

Speaking of climate change, more letters from subscribers on the subject. This from subscriber, Alix:

Couldn’t help noting the latest bit of debate about (man made) climate change in your bulletin.

People with a serious interest in this issue could do worse than read the article “Illusions of Climate Science” by William Kininmonth as published (I think) in the October 2008 issue of Quadrant magazine.

Among other things Kininmonth was for many years Australia’s most senior accredited climate scientist and represented us at relevant international events dating back to about the 1970s when the “possibility” on man made global warming, having originated in the sphere of scientific speculation, made a subtle transition to the political arena by entering the workings of the United Nations.

In that article it is interesting to read both Kininmonth’s observations about both the relevance of the science involved – and his “fly on the wall” observations of how this politically convenient piece of scientific speculation progressed to its present internationally controversial status as “proven fact”. 

How often do we see the likes of Kininmonth interviewed on the ABC — or anywhere else?

This from subscriber, Peter Z:

I enjoy your letters. In your spare time you may feel inclined to confirm this, as I have not really had the chance. However I have heard a theory that climate change is a natural phenomena, not related to emissions.  The theory is that our solar system is entering a more energetically “dense” section of the galaxy. More energetic density means more heat.

Apparently, but I have not verified this, NASA’s own research indicates that every planet in the solar system is undergoing change, whether temperature wise or changing magnetic field strength. Should we be surprised if there is such research but it is kept from the general public?  Should we be at all surprised if such a theory turned out to be true? The anecdotal evidence from reasonable sounding people such as the fish farmer who wrote in should not be dismissed lightly.

I am still in favour of reducing toxic (not just CO2) emissions, because we shouldn’t be poisoning our environment. What I think we’re seeing around the world is increasingly variable weather, such as heatwaves in an area or a “polar vortex” in another. Whilst I think there is increasing heat in some areas, we are seeing surprising cold in others. It seems no-one gives much thought to the possibility of these natural causes. With so much correspondence to and from your office about this issue, can you please hire a “climate change” analyst?

Finally, this letter from subscriber, Peter W:

“The science of climate change is a dangerous and fanatical lobby group. It’s intent on turning civilisation back to the Dark Ages.”

Are not unsubstantiated extreme statements from any person or group dangerous? And how can science be a fanatical lobby group — I guess scientists can be, but not science itself.

I was a scientist once — I now claim only to be retired and trying to keep a SMSF on course!

And why is the answer to (what you consider) extreme statements by scientists — thalidomide? It’s such an overused bit of nonsense often trotted out by those who obviously have never made a mistake in life.

Correct science NEVER states a final view — that is totally against the scientific method of incremental changes (and not always in the right direction). No scientist ever stated they were absolutely right — probably better put that anyone who comes up with an “absolute” statement cannot by definition be a scientist, or right!

I enjoy your articles (mostly), but please let’s keep within sensible bounds. I accept you have generally interesting and useful comments to make about investing and matters-financial. I would prefer it if you stuck to your speciality and let others make fools of themselves without contributing to that nonsense.

Peter won’t find an argument with your editor about the assertion that ‘correct science NEVER states a final view.’ In which case, we have two observations.

First, why do climate change fanatics insist on saying the science is settled?

Second, considering they continue to do so, it’s only fair to say that climate change science isn’t a ‘correct science’.

But that’s not all. It’s also important to highlight how scientific views have changed over the past 40 years, and to therefore use that as the basis for scepticism over current claims.

Take this screenshot of the New York Times from 21 May, 1975:





Source: New York Times
Click to enlarge


For your reading ease, below are the first three paragraphs from the article:

The world’s climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.

There are specialists who say that a new ice age is on the way — the inevitable consequence of a natural cyclic process, or as a result of man-made pollution of the atmosphere. And there are those who say that such pollution may actually head off an ice age.

Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. Hints that it may already have begun are evident. The drop in mean temperatures since 1950 in the Northern Hemisphere has been sufficient for example, to shorten Britain’s growing season for crops by two weeks.

These are not your editor’s words. These are the words of the New York Times. And after the recent US election, we know that the Times places a lot of emphasis on fact checking!

So it would surely not run anything that it didn’t think had at least some merit.

The fact is, the world’s climate changes all the time. Whether you are an evolutionist or creationist, everyone would agree that there have been changes and extremes in global temperatures over the years.

And if you want to do your own research, check the Sydney Morning Herald archives for references to an impending ice age. Here are a few for your entertainment:

New ice age coming in 5,000 years’ — 27 July, 1976

Another Ice Age?’ — 1 August, 1972

A new Ice Age?’ — 29 July, 1972

NEW ICE AGE ON THE WAY?’ — 31 January, 1971

Ice Age cometh, says Sir Fred…’ — 21 June, 1981

Dirt will bring new ice age — experts’, 19 October, 1970

Supersonics or an ice age?’ — 9 June, 1972

Book discusses Ice Age theory’ — 27 July, 1972

The Earth is moving once again towards an ice age…’ — 13 October, 1956

NEW ICE AGE’ — 16 February, 1975

Rise in snow predicted: Glaciers may swallow land’ — 31 August, 1958

Ice from Greenland suggests the planet could experience rapid and dramatic climatic changes, shifting from an ice age to a warm period and back again within decades’ — 17 July, 1993

Brrr…it’s getting colder’ — 5 July, 1975

What does this prove? It proves what subscriber Peter writes: That science should ‘NEVER’ state a final view.

Based on what we’ve read, scientists seemed quite confident that the planet would go through a cooling period. What changed…? Now they’re confident the planet will go through a warming period.

Who’s to say their view won’t change again, 20 or 30 years from now, as scientific methods and analysis changes, or as new and different evidence emerges?

But, whatever; there doesn’t seem to be much doubt that the narrative on the world’s climate changed somewhere around the late 1980s to early 1990s.

Funnily enough, it was in 1994 that the globalist United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came into effect. Recall subscriber Alix’s email above. Since then, the UN has held climate change conferences from 1995 in Berlin, through to 2016 in Morocco.

It’s no coincidence that, since then, the story on climate change has tilted in one direction — and one direction only. Search for references to ‘global warming’ in the 1970s, and you’ll find few results.

Search for the same term in the 1980s, and you’ll find plenty of references. Search for ‘ice age’ or ‘new ice age’, and you’ll find plenty of references, too.

But from the 1990s onwards, the dominant factor is the concept of ‘climate change’ as a euphemism for ‘global warming’.

The reason is simple: The involvement of the United Nations, and no doubt a small number of scientists sympathetic to the ‘warming’ argument, helped steer the world’s scientists and government in one direction.

By advocating a single threat, rather than a multitude of threats, it has clearly been easier for the science lobby groups and governments to make their argument.

It’s a key element of propaganda used over centuries. One targeted threat is better than many.

As time has passed, this approach has taken complete hold. Scientists and lobbyists simply had to convince key ‘influencers’ — mostly people in government, celebrities, and others who would willingly peddle the case.

Again, another key element of successful propaganda.

Another is misinformation. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, dated 1992, references the UN Conference on the Human Environment of 1972.

A glance at the declaration from that 1972 conference contains nothing about ‘climate change’. It talks about natural human rights, pollution, and other things, but nothing about climate change.

That’s probably because, back in 1972, there was no lobby group and no understanding of the remarkable ‘lobby dollars’ available to scientists.

That’s what the so-called science of climate change is really all about. It’s about scientists following the money. The reality is that, if climate change scientists were prosecuting ‘Mr Climate Change’ in court, the evidence provided would fall far short of being beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have no doubt that the climate is subject to change over short and long periods. But do we believe it’s man-made? No. And do we believe that the Earth’s climate is on a one-way path to ever warmer temperatures? No, we don’t believe that, either.

Looked at over the long term, the Earth’s climate can be just as volatile as weather patterns and the stock market. That’s all there is to it. 20 years from now, today’s scientists will be made to look like chumps, and they will have moved on to their next social engineering project.

Cheers,
Kris

PS: Remember, our Alliance intake is only open until midnight Wednesday, 25 November. Don’t miss out. Go here.