FEDERAL RESERVE MODELING WEATHER
Well, here's some additive for your high octane speculation refinery that was spotted and shared by E.E. (with our thanks). This is truly one for the record books folks, because, as the article points out, the Federal reserve cannot even model Treasuries risks successfully, much less the weather. We might also add that the Fed cannot even give us a decent estimate of how much derivatives are sloshing around in the system (nor can any other central bank or banksters). Anyway, as you can imagine, I have a few high octane speculations of my own as to why the Federal Reserve would be modeling weather, but before we can get to those, here's the article that E.E. spotted:
Now note what we have: we have a "study" that is allegedly (cough hack wheeze) not about "setting policy" but merely studying "climate change":
Under guise that it's just a stress test model and not a policy setting model, the Fed announced details on its Pilot Climate Scenario Risk Analysis Program on January 17.
As described in the instruction document released today, the six largest U.S. banks will analyze the impact of scenarios for both physical and transition risks related to climate change on specific assets in their portfolios. To support the exercise's goals of deepening understanding of climate risk-management practices and building capacity to identify, measure, monitor, and manage climate-related financial risks, the Board will gather qualitative and quantitative information over the course of the pilot, including details on governance and risk management practices, measurement methodologies, risk metrics, data challenges, and lessons learned.
"The Fed has narrow, but important, responsibilities regarding climate-related financial risks – to ensure that banks understand and manage their material risks, including the financial risks from climate change," Vice Chair for Supervision Michael S. Barr said. "The exercise we are launching today will advance the ability of supervisors and banks to analyze and manage emerging climate-related financial risks."
There you have it: this is about managing "emerging climate-related financial risks."
Uh huh (cough hack wheeze again). If you believe that, I have some options on bridge futures in Brooklyn for sale.
And make no mistake, the author of the Zero Hedge article, Mike Shedlock, reaches a similar conclusion about the worthlessness of the Fed's study as a valuable contribution to the study of climate-related risk management:
The Fed cannot even model US Treasuries. Its stress-free test would have failed to identify the imploded Silicon Valley Bank as a problem
Yet, for political reasons, the Fed is now attempting to stress test the weather.
To get the desired results, the Fed study gave St. Vincent the same weight as China.
I suggest the Fed should throw this nonsense in the garbage and stress test commercial real estate, interest rates, accelerated QT, and things that it has clearly neglected.
That, as far as it goes, is Zero Hedge's and the Wall Street Journal's interpretation of the Federal Reserve's climate and weather-modeling study. And as far as it goes, I'm not personally inclined to reject their criticisms.
However, as you can imagine, I strongly suspect we're really watching something quite different than just an in-house debate between the Federal Reserve and the independent experts of The Wall Street Journal. The article cites the Federal Reserve as trying to assure us that it's study is not about affecting policy, but I'm more disturbed about what is not being said in this study. Most of the readers of this website or of my books will be aware that I view weather modification and manipulation technology not as a matter of the distant future of science fiction, but as a current reality and accomplished fact. Weather, and the ability to manipulate and steer it - to exacerbate or damp the intensity of storms, to intensify draughts or floods, or to cause them, to steer tornadoes or to cause them - all of these possibilities I view as more or less accomplished fact. I'm with Elana Freeland here, and her statement that because of the existence and use of such technologies there is no more such thing as purely natural weather. It is all, because of these technologies, man made, and note, that man-made does not mean nor include the usual climate disaster apocalyptic narrative: this is not cow farts, or fossil fuels, or any of the absurd nonsense that is normally associated with climate change. Those types of things are simply the narrative that has been created to mask the existence, and use, of weather manipulation technologies, technologies that can literally alter the geophysical properties of the planet itself, including its magnetosphere and the planet's relationship to the other celestial bodies in our solar system. Lest I be unclear, it is the secret military quest for such planet-manipulating technologies such as weather control, for the purpose of "force multipliers", that is the real climate crisis. Not your local cattle rancher, or oil rig. Climate change is the public narrative designed to conceal this operation and technological quest, just as UFOs were, and are, in part, a narrative designed to conceal the research and acquisition of advanced aerodyne and propulsion technologies.
In a world where "weather derivatives" are the latest financial instruments, the presence and secretive use of such technologies can be used in a kind of "insider trading", and this, pace the observation of former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitts is what we see in "disaster capitalism": the use (or creation) of crises of opportunity to pick up assets on the cheap, and with the advent of weather derivatives, one can do a bit of insider trading - ala the Federal Reserve's climate studies - and make a little extra money along the way on financial instruments based on the direction or trend-line of the weather!
So what I am suggesting here with the Federal Reserve's "weather modelling study" is that we have a bit of confirmation of the existence and us of such technologies. But not only that. My high octane speculation is that we're looking not at a policy motivation, but at an enforcement motivation for such studies. This enforcement motivation - i.e., the actual use of weather modification technologies to enforce policy - is, I suggest, strongly hinted at in that last sentence of the first quotation cited above: "The exercise we are launching today will advance the ability of supervisors and banks to analyze and manage emerging climate-related financial risks." I submit that the best way to manage such risks is to control the technology that actually can modify, control, exacerbate, damp, and steer weather phenomena.
In short, I think the Fed just told us that they're the financial agents for some of the people controlling such technologies. Time will tell, of course, whether or not today's high octane speculation will be confirmed by more such stories, or if, once again, I've taken a nose-dive off the end of the speculation cliff like Wile E. Coyote...
See you on the flip side...
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.