Wednesday, 21 November 2018

Rough weather for New Zealand


Rainy few days ahead for many parts of NZ




We have continued to have very strange cloud cover here in Wellington.

Most people can't see it; for them a cloud is a cloud, is a cloud



I am told that this configuration can indicate weather manipulation and presage extreme weather.

This is what the weather people are saying



RNZ

Parts of Dunedin and Otago were today in clean up mode after up to 150 millimetres of rain fell in just 48 hours, but MetService meteorologist Georgina Griffiths says rain will ease in the region over the next 24 hours.

Meanwhile... 

 

Dane Wigington interviewed on climate engineering


Many of these people are climate change deniers, however...


Climate Engineering the Single Greatest Threat Short of Nuclear Cataclysm




Greg Hunter

 Don’t expect to get the truth from the government or the mainstream media (MSM) that climate engineering is dangerous to humanity, let alone even going on, because climate engineering researcher Dane Wigington says, “Right now, there is an official illegal federal gag order on all of the National Weather Service and NOAA. If all of the consequences of climate engineering were considered, it is mathematically the single greatest threat we collectively face short of nuclear cataclysm. If we don’t address these issues, it effects every breath we take and the entire web of life, we are on an extraordinary short time horizon. . . . Climate engineering is not about the greater good. It is about keeping business as usual and keeping power in the hands of people who already hold it. It’s about confusing and dividing the population about the true state of the climate until the last possible moment. . . . They are hiding the severity of the climate to keep the population from panicking because the situation is so severe. . . . Here in the U.S., we are importing about $41 billion worth of food annually to keep the U.S. store shelves stocked to keep Americans pacified and clueless as to what is happening around the world until the last possible moment. It is that severe.”

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Dane Wigington, founder of GeoEngineeringWatch.org.

U.S. ruins APEC Summit


U.S. Busts APEC Summit With Tariff Demands - New York Times Blames China

 

US, China Clash at APEC Summit in Papua New Guinea
20 November, 2018

New York Times report about last weekend's summit in Asia demonstrates how U.S. media misinform their readers about international events.

The recent summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in Papua New Guinea failed to come up with a joint statement. Prime Minister Peter O’Neill of Papua New Guinea, who hosted the summit, promised to issue a "chair's statement" instead. None can be found so far on the APEC website. This was the first time since 1989 that no joined 'Leaders' Declaration' was issued.

The reason was a spat between the U.S. and China about a clause the U.S. tried to insert into the joint declaration.

But as the Times tells the story, the failure of the summit was solely China's fault:
At a major international gathering in Papua New Guinea over the weekend, the United States wanted to end with a group statement emphasizing free trade. China objected.
But instead of working out the disagreement through dialogue, Chinese officials barged uninvited into the office of the host country’s foreign minister demanding changes in the official communiqué.
...
“China doesn’t care if it looks like a boor. If you are a tough guy, you don’t care what others think,” said Hugh White, a former military strategist for the Australian government and author of “The China Choice.”
Such behavior was only surprising because it had been more than 30 years since the world had witnessed such edginess, Mr. White said.

The Chinese deny that the APEC incident happened at all. Mr. White seems to have missed the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks during which the U.S. president and his secretary of state boorishly busted a meeting, held by China, Brazil, India and others, they were not invited to join:
Once they found the makeshift conference room where the meeting was being held, Obama, Clinton, and their aides approached a "commotion" as she describes it — foreign aides and security guards outside the door. According to Clinton, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs confronted a Chinese guard. "In the commotion the president slipped through the door and yelled, 'Mr Premier!' really loudly, which got everyone's attention. The Chinese guards put their arms up against the door again, but I ducked under and made it through," Clinton wrote.

Back the NYT's APEC piece:
The American official said the Chinese had taken issue with two portions of the draft communiqué that Washington supported and other members embraced.

One paragraph said the APEC member economies agreed to fight against unfair trade practices. Another paragraph said that members of the group would work together to improve the “negotiating, monitoring and dispute settlement functions” of the World Trade Organization.

The NYT report does not say what the U.S. promoted paragraphs actually said. Nor does it quote any Chinese source. What are "unfair trade agreements"? What WTO changes were asked for? Why are these "improvements". Why is that supposed to be an APEC issue?

The AFP's has a way more informative take of the talks:
"You know the two big giants in the room. What can I say?" said host and Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Peter O'Neill, conceding defeat.
...
Sources said going into the meeting 
the United States had pressed for the leaders to issue what amounted to a denunciation of the World Trade Organization and a call for its wholesale reform. That demand was a step too far for Beijing, which would likely get less preferential treatment under any changes.
...

O'Neill indicated the WTO had been a sticking point in agreeing a joint communique.
"APEC has got no charter over the World Trade Organization. That is a fact," he said. "Those matters can be raised at the World Trade Organization."
The U.S. obviously pressed others to agree to WTO changes.

When China joined the WTO in 2001 its GDP per capita was less than $2,000. It was classified as a "developing country" which gave it some justified privileges. Eighteen years later China's GDP per capita is approaching $8,000. The U.S. GDP per capita is $53,000, while the EU's is about $37,000. China has certainly become more wealthy but it is still not a fully developed country. While the issue is not urgent it will have to be discussed and China is willing to do that.

But the issue that the U.S. pressed for was even more controversial.
AFP continues:
"Business leaders do not want to speak out, but behind the scenes here, they are talking over dinner saying 'how has this happened'?" Denis O'Brien, the billionaire chairman of Digicel told AFP.

"It's a very forced situation, one country is trying to force all the other countries to change tariffs agreed over years," O'Brien said.
What the U.S. actually tries to achieve is not only to break certain privileges China holds.
It wants to justify its punitive tariffs against China and other countries which are illegal under WTO rules. Trump's original plan was going even further. He considered a bill that would allow him to raise tariffs at will without congressional consent:
Nations are prohibited from setting different tariff rates for different countries outside of free trade agreements and the established tariff ceiling that WTO members have agreed to.
"It would be the equivalent of walking away from the WTO and our commitments there without us actually notifying our withdrawal," a source familiar with the bill told the outlet but added that Congress would never agree to the bill, describing it as “insane.”
...
Axios had reported that 
Trump had asked aides about pulling the U.S. out of the WTO, and said the world had used the organization to “screw the United States.”

The NYT is pointing in the wrong direction when it blames China of the failure of the APEC summit. It was the U.S. that tried to abuse the summit's joint statement by inserting clauses that a. to not belong within the frame of APEC and b. are an attempt to subvert internationally agreed trade rules.

It is certainly not only China that rejects the Trump administrations attempts to change the rule book for international trade that all WTO members have agreed to. The chair of the meeting agreed with the Chinese side in this. Any reference of WTO reform with the aim to change tariff rules is not an APEC issue and should have no place in its joint statement. The NYT readers though, will never learn this.


What the NYT defends as "emphasizing free trade" and as a "fight against unfair trade practices" is the exact opposite. The Trump administration tries to change trade rules so they would allow it to introduce tariffs as it wishes. The Trump administration does not want to "improve" the WTO, it wants to abolish it.  Its measures would destroy free trade.

The Trump administration will not be unhappy about the failed APEC summit. It is actively trying to thwart inner-Asian cooperation. It hopes to induce Asian countries to join its anti-China front. The NYT, it seems, is fully supportive of these moves.

Will the British government will attempt to plunge the financial markets into chaos?


UK Government Plan To ‘Engineer Financial Crash’ To Scare MP’s Into Voting For Brexit Deal


20 November, 2018


Faced with the prospect of the Brexit deal being voted down, the British government will attempt to plunge the financial markets into chaos according to a report in the Sunday Times.
A source close to aides of British Prime Minister Theresa May claims that the UK government is planning to “engineer a financial crash” if parliament fails to back their Brexit deal, in a bid to frighten MPs into voting it through at a second vote.
RT reports: A source, who has discussed the issue with May’s officials, has told the paper that No 10 has come up with a dark plan to twist the arms of MPs to force through their Brexit deal.


“No 10’s plan is to encourage a crash in financial markets after losing a first vote in the hope this stampedes MPs into voting for it second time,” the source claims.
On social media, there’s been a mixture of shock at the prospect of such a course of action and cynicism at whether the UK government have direct control over the financial markets to engineer a crash. On Twitter, Guardian columnist, Owen Jones asked how is this not a “national scandal?” John McTernan, ex-adviser to former Labour PM Tony Blair, suggests May’s Tory government is merely predicting the inevitable.


How is this not a national scandal? The Tories are planning to engineer a financial crash in order to terrify MPs into voting through May's terrible deal after they reject it the first time. Imagine the deafening outrage if a Labour Government tried to do this? (via Sunday Times)
2,488 people are talking about this
Not to worry - I suspect if this present Government tried to engineer a financial crash the result would be share prices going through the roof
See Mike Kelly's other Tweets

How is this not a national scandal? The Tories are planning to engineer a financial crash in order to terrify MPs into voting through May's terrible deal after they reject it the first time. Imagine the deafening outrage if a Labour Government tried to do this? (via Sunday Times)

View image on Twitter

David Spencer, Professor of Economics and Political Economy at Leeds University, told RT it’s the uncertainty surrounding Brexit that causes volatility in financial markets – and any crash will not be the consequence of direct government action, but the symptom of their policies.
Professor Spencer said: “Financial investors hate uncertainty and while the uncertainty around Brexit drags on volatility in financial markets looks inevitable – the UK govt adds to this volatility so as long as it delays any resolution to the Brexit problem.
“But the volatility is not something they directly control, instead it is a symptom of their behaviour and policies.”
He argues British sterling and the markets will fall if May’s government fails to get their Brexit deal through parliament at the first attempt