A Short Preview (Login to Access the Full Interview):

Farrell: “They seem to come out with these hot fusion announcements every time the market is in trouble.”
Fitts: “Right. Every time the dollar is falling, they need to prove that they can increase productivity, and it’s going to come through breakthrough energy.”
~ Dr. Joseph P. Farrell and Catherine Austin Fitts, 2nd Quarter 2023 Wrap Up, News Trends & Stories, Part I

By Catherine Austin Fitts

With the help of allies like Patrick Wood, the Solari Report has sounded the alarm about technocracy for many years, explaining that one of technocracy’s core features is central management of all resources, including energy. As the centralization push accelerates, the importance of understanding energy reality (as opposed to “official reality”) has become increasingly evident.

For that reason, I invited independent energy consultant and systems engineer Charlie Stephens to give Solari subscribers an overview of energy in the 21st century. In Part I, we consider various energy sources and the important concept of “energy return on investment” as well as unanswered questions about breakthrough energy.

In Part II, we dive further into the weaponization of environmental and climate concerns—and the monetary and fiscal policies that make that weaponization go. We also talk about the enormous energy costs of the control grid. Finally, we emphasize that our ability to shift from unproductive and destructive energy policies to something more positive and intelligent depends on a shift to lawful and transparent governance and regenerative agriculture.

Energy is a critical variable that shapes our day-to-day experience in a myriad of ways. Listening to these two interviews will help you navigate the flood of confusing debate and propaganda on this topic.

Money & Markets:

This is the last week of the month, so there is no Money & Markets. The next Money & Markets will publish on September 7. Post questions at the Money & Markets commentary here.


88 Comments

  1. There have been some great guests and discussions on Solari Report over the years, but this one is top of the heap. I have learned more in this two part presentation than I have in any other single presentation possibly in my entire life. Thank you.

    1. That’s really, really kind of you to say, Wayne. Thank you. I hope we’ll be having more conversations about related topics. My systems-based studies have covered a lot of ground over the last 50 years so there’s lots to talk about. And a lot of good, rewarding work to do in redesigning our societal systems!

  2. Sorry, maybe i have misunderstood … this guy believes the climate change narrative? The one where too many humans are the problem?

    1. Nope. Where the current system is the problem – #1 is the rackets, etc. Need to listen to the whole thing.

      1. Excellent. I will make fresh coffee, and listen again. I figured i must have missed something.

        1. And I’ll be happy to have a conversation with you about anything you have questions about. Charlie

  3. After revisiting the research of astrophysicist, Henrik Svensmark, I urge everybody in here to see his lectures on the role of sun variability on cloud forming and global warming.
    I venture, that his research IS the missing link in an integrated climate understanding, and provides a crucial set of scholarly arguments against anthropogenic climate change:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhdsZHHNy8k

    1. Despite Svensmark’s impressive publications and findings, his research is being defunded, his professorship has been denied and he was almost fired from Danish Institute of Technology. His first findings arrived at the same time as a huge UN Climate summit, and they evoked great hostility from the UN. I also recommend this interview with Svensmark:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZBWEKCW2Fc

    2. Hi again, Martin. I watched Dr. Svensmark’s talk and enjoyed it very much. As a systems engineer, I seldom spend time learning about “the system” at the cosmic scale, and it’s always a pleasure.
      I’ll make a few observations. First, he’s talking about very large cycles that occur at a rate (based on his data) of about 8 per 500 million years. The cycles are large. Each cycle takes many millennia to evolve and then many more millennia to reverse. What most climate scientists are concerned about today is that changes that are starting to look like they’re of that magnitude are happening in a matter of decades. Something is driving the significant change in time scale.
      He suggested that CO2 had been stable at 280 ppm over many millennia. According to the Greenland data I’ve seen that’s not true. the 280 figure is the average of the range (240-320 ppm). It’s easy to discount CO2 if you believe that it’s constant while all of these cycles are going on.
      And last, all of his cloud-related data that he cited (within the last 100 years) completely ignored the millions of tons of material dumped into the atmosphere for decades now that absolutely manages the cloud cover in the northern hemisphere, and if you haven’t been read in on that, a lot of the correlations and observations one makes will have no relation to what the weather and climate situation would be in the absence of the weather engineering. I watch them manufacture a complete high altitude overcast in a matter of a couple of hours, in place of what started as a clear sunny day. The temperature impacts are notable – clouds reflect about 21% of the incoming short-wavelength solar energy and absorb about 3%. That’s a big deal on an otherwise sunny day. The cloud nuclei being used are typically aluminum nano-particles – Welsbach particles. Some of the early patents (of the few I know about) trace back to Lawrence Livermore Lab in CA, in 1991. But the weather engineering has been going on since the 1950s. I have a 1996 Air Force paper on engineering weather as a “force multiplier.” They can, and have, dissipated typhoons, intensified and directed hurricanes (like Ian recently), created incredibly localized high velocity wind patterns, caused blizzards and downpours – all of the things the racketeers claim are caused by climate change. The fact that they’re causing all of it doesn’t mean that climate change, some of it human-caused, isn’t happening. It’s just not the most immediate threat to the lives and livelihood of most of us. They’re attacking us on many fronts and most people don’t realize we’re in a war. We really need to come together and focus on that. Redesign the system. Charlie

      1. “The cycles are large.” Well yes and no, Svensmark has demonstrated the effect on several time scales – down to solar bursts. At 11:15 Svensmark shows the intimate correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover over a 25 year period and over a at 19:40 35 day period. In both cases there are heavy correlation with delay, suggesting causation. To prove the link between cosmic rays and clouds ought to be enough to demonstrate the link to temperature, since the high contribution of clouds to temperature aren’t disputed – even by the IPCC.
        Now I don’t dispute that the military industrial complex is seeding and thus creating clouds as well, but were their contribution as large as the cosmic, there surely wouldn’t have been such a intimate pattern of correlation as is the case?
        On a weather scale, I’m sure that the military can accomplish some tricks, but on a climate scale I’m less convinced.

        1. Had the weather modification impacted the climate in the way you suggest, it would have muddled the correlation between cosmic rays and clouds, and we wouldn’t have this very impressive – almost isoform – correlation then.

      2. “It’s easy to discount CO2 if you believe that it’s constant while all of these cycles are going on.”
        Certainly, but it’s also the other way around. You might very well overestimate CO2, if you don’t factor in cosmic rays. The role of CO2 as a climate culprit would diminish quite a bit when you factor in the cosmic rays as function of solar activity and the clouds as a function of cosmic rays. You can’t have serious climate models without this as a factor. And right now, that’s what we have. And noone in the UN or the IPPC seems interested in factoring it in.

      3. About the 280 ppm level, there seems to be consensus about that level being more or less stable from 265 to 280 ppm during the holocene.
        “Over that time, CO2 levels increased to 265 ppm, which was about 1 ppm every 125 years. From 10,500 years ago to the year 1850, CO2 levels slowly increased to about 280 ppm, an increase to which early humans are thought to have contributed with the development of farming and the slow deforestation of forests over time.”
        https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/55/how-might-earths-atmosphere-land-and-ocean-systems-respond-to-changes-in-carbon-dioxide-over-time/
        So if NASA is right in their premise, the argument holds; the low variability in CO2 doesn’t fit the higher variability in temperature in the same period. And there shurely must have been a higher temperature variability, since the earth was moving from the end of an iceage through an interglacial period.The forensic evidence in glaciation supports this.

      6. A ten minute basic overview of space weather – what it is, and how it impacts us.

        Ben also focuses on cyclical catastrophe theories, and that info has a playlist on his channel. It’s a lot to absorb, but I would love to know your thoughts on this stuff.

        I’ve noticed a few other Solari folks also follow Ben’s work. I’m guessing we’d all be interested in seeing you chat with him.

        Thanks again for your work. I’m still catching up on your conversations, and perhaps i missed this part.

        https://youtu.be/UDKKhNFiXjY?si=vgSYDgujmHW4LRRR

    3. Well that’s too bad, but not surprising. The same international crime syndicate that’s poisoning us all, confiscating property all over the Western world, destroying our food supply, locking us down, imprisoning us in 15-minute cities, and setting us up (with CBDCs) to literally enslave us all has weaponized climate change to justify all of their totalitarian transitions. This doesn’t mean that climate change doesn’t exist, or that humans aren’t causing any of it – that isn’t the lie. The lies are everything thing they claim to do doing about it. Nothing they’re doing would ever address climate change. The things that would dramatically reduce our impact on the climate are things that would end their rackets, so they can’t possibly allow that. And anyone who threatens the idea of climate change, and takes away that particular stick with which they’re beating us is a target for de-funding, denigration, de-platforming, and disappearing. No big surprise.
      As I keep trying to suggest, our best strategy is go after their rackets for reasons that have nothing to do with climate change, which is what I hope to talk about in Part 3. Charlie

  5. I simply can’t take seriously the assertion of a trace gas like co2 changing the climate with correlational argument alone. Graphs I have been presented with have shown a lag in co2 concentration to temperature change – the inference being that it’s the change in temperature that’s the cause of co2 concentrations. Also the correlation is in many graphs not always there.

    1. I guess all I can say here is that not all molecules are equal, no matter the trace amounts. Your own lungs are highly sensitive to all of the trace gases we encounter, but in different measures. Even the same molecule responds differently to the incoming visible and UV radiation than it does to the outgoing infrared radiation. Water vapor is also a trace gas in the troposphere, but has a large impact on the balance of incoming and outgoing energy. Let’s face it, compared to oxygen (21%) and nitrogen (78%), every gas in the troposphere is a trace gas. Refrigerants have thousands of times the atmospheric impact of CO2 per molecule, but even they’re in the troposphere in trace amounts – less than CO2. This is just very old physics – from the 19th century, and the fossil fuel companies knew all of this in the 1960s. They’ve invested billions since then to fill the dialogue on these issues with nonsense – lies, omissions, and deceit. Most people don’t have the technical ability to sort out what’s true and what isn’t.
      Some of us, who started studying this particular part of physics in the 1970, were able to learn a lot of the science well before it became a political issue and the world was awash propaganda. For the record, there are no temperature measurements – only models – unless you restrict the analysis period to about 100 years. Prehistoric temperature numbers are inferred, and how they’re inferred depends on who’s doing the modeling, and what answers they want. You may or may not have noticed that exactly the same thing has been going on with the COVID racket for the last few years (well, actually, way before that). The answer you get depends on who’s asking (and paying), and what the goal is. Remember the UK model that said millions would die?
      So I’m focused on getting rid of the waste and destruction rather than arguing about whether or not one of the longer-term impacts exists. We’re all being poisoned, debilitated, killed, and terminally medicated in the short term, and consuming vast amounts of energy and resources for those purposes. Maybe we should stop it. Charlie

      1. Yes, I agreee, they’re inferred, they’re proxies. However they can, as I noted in another comment, be corroborated by forensic evidence, such as archeological findings, and also the temperature pattern of the last 100 years serves as an external criteria for vetting the proxies, that are used to establish the patterns before our direct measurements.

      2. Ah….yes, like not working for the companies doing it or financing them etc. Crowd and their pocketbooks can WALK AWAY!

  6. How did Charley Stevens develop energy for a living , electricity, automobile fuel, just normal daily, living necessities? My family and I which is extensive I thinking of buying land in the lower part of the mountains, foothills and building a complex were researching it now.

  7. Charlie, I’m in Austin, TX. Place based decisions questions… Regulation at United States states:
    Any best and worst and then any comment about Texas?

    FYI: Texas left a highly regulated market a while back and of course rates are up but Austin Energy is a city entity…public utility so we think that’s great. We’ve missed brown out close calls a couple of times in the last week with Texas Ercot centralization for efficiency.
    Below is for subscribers fyi. Thanks for being you Charlie!

    https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards
    Last Updated: Sep 8, 2023 16:59 CT
    Current Generation
    Solar
    11,861 MW(14.2%)
    Wind
    5,498 MW(6.6%)
    Hydro
    166 MW(0.2%)
    Power Storage
    299 MW(0.4%)
    Other
    105 MW(0.1%)
    Natural Gas
    48,716 MW(58.5%)
    Coal and Lignite
    11,686 MW(14.0%)
    Nuclear
    4,937 MW(5.9%)

Comments are closed.