Accounting Simulation Chapter 1 70 Points: Fill & Download for Free

Definitely Not. There is no climate crisis relevant to humans or in other words that humans have any control or influence to stop or change.The claim of a climate crisis is based on deliberately distorted science by the UN IPCC with a shadow agenda. CO2 is wholly beneficial and the minute amount in the atmosphere at near zero 0.0017 % from fossil emissions has no effect on the climate.I am supported in this opinion by a raft of leading scientists who are showing courage by making petitions and speaking out with the very clear message to the UN and the world generally:THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISISNo Climate Emergency say 500 Scientists to UN698,048 views•27 Sep 2019Friends of ScienceCurrent list of signees: https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads... On the same day that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the UN about her fears of a climate emergency, 500 scientists sent a registered letter to the UN Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Links: Prominent scientists warn UN Secretary-General Guterres https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientis... Press Briefing https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads... Registered Letter https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads...CategoryScience & TechnologyThere is no climate emergencyA global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warmingThe geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.Warming is far slower than predictedThe world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.Climate policy relies on inadequate modelsClimate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on EarthCO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.Global warming has not increased natural disastersThere is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realitiesThere is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.Italian petition90 leading Italian Scientists have just issued a petition with details confirming no climate crisis from human industrialization and exposing the computer modeling errors of alarmists that deny the dominant role of the sun in the climate and natural variability. The petition says -Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.The full terms of the Italian petition follows -90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”By P Gosselin on4. July 201990 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. Source. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leadersTo the President of the RepublicTo the President of the SenateTo the President of the Chamber of DeputiesTo the President of the CouncilPETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.This uncertainty is enormous.In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.http://www.opinione.it/…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/…Here are the most relevant exculpatory details showing CO2 is innocent of any warming climate impact.WHAT CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE?On the most basic of all issues what causes climate change the IPCC is dishonest and uses an obviously fudged and deceitful summary of the research of their own scientists. They ignore the fact they have ‘no study to date shows that for humans are the cause.’In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”IPCC politicians wrote the final report and the “Summary”. The rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary’. Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:“The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.”This summary is dishonest and shows the bias and shadow agenda of the IPCC.Please reread the three statements above from the IPCC scientists again and weep. We are being badly duped at the terrible cost of to the undeveloped peoples > 2 billion living off grid and needing cheap fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. The statements mean the alarmist IPCC leadership know they are lying and they ignore their own science research because they believe the end justifies foul means.The evidence is shoddy because the hypothesis is unproven and unimaginable - that trace amounts of plant food Co2 at 0.1 ,near zero % of the atmosphere could have such a large effect.There are many papers that say no to any human cause - here are recent examples first from the major Chinese Academy :The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院The research looked directly at the question are humans the driving force of cliamte change and concluded no!ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are“the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.”The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordhttps://www.nature.com/articles/...Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NATURALThe “driving forces” of climate change are natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming.AbstractThe identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. [Emphasis added]. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.Book sceptical of climate changePhilippe Verdier of state-owned channel France 2 was taken off air in October for his book attacking ‘complete hype on the climate’Associated Press in ParisMon 2 Nov 2015 20.40 GMTVerdier sent an open letter to France’s president, François Hollande, challenging him to plant a tree at the Élysée Palace. Photograph: Bertrand Guay/AFP/Getty ImagesA weather forecaster for French state television has been fired after releasing and promoting a book criticising politicians, scientists and others for what he calls an exaggerated view of climate change.THE FIRING OF METEOROLOGIST VERDIER FOR WRITING A BOOK CRITICAL OF CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED AN OUTRAGE IN FRANCE AND MOTIVATED THE SOCIETE de CALCUL MATHEMATIQUE, SA. TO WRITE THIS WHITE PAPER.Société de Calcul Mathématique SA Tools for decision helpSince 1995The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusadeWhite PaperThe mastiff Liberty growls and shows its sharp teeth. Victor Hugo: Les Châtiments (Castigations)September 2015Siège social et bureaux : 111 Faubourg St Honoré, 75008 Paris. Tel 33 1 42 89 10 89. Fax 33 1 42 89 10 69 SCM SA : accueil Société Anonyme au capital de 56 200 Euros. RCS : Paris B 399 991 041. SIRET : 399 991 041 00035. APE : 731Zhttp://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM...SummaryAll public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming. The initial credo is simple: temperatures at the surface of the planet have been rising constantly for the past thirty years, and human beings are to blame.This is leading to all sorts of discussions, conferences and regulations, which are having an enormous impact on our economy. Every area of activity is affected: transport, housing, energy – to name just a few. Why do we need to save energy? It is quite simple: we have to reduce human impact on the planet. This is the fundamental credo.The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling.The crusade has invaded every area of activity and everyone‘s thinking: the battle against CO2 has become a national priority. How have we reached this point, in a country that claims to be rational?At the root lie the declarations made by the IPCC, which have been repeated over the years and taken up by the European Commission and the Member States. France, which likes to see itself as the ̳good boy of Europe‘, adds an extra layer of virtue to every crusade. When others introduce reductions, we will on principle introduce bigger reductions, without ever questioning their appropriateness: a crusade is virtuous by its very nature. And you can never be too virtuous.But mathematicians do not believe in crusades; they look at facts, figures, observations and arguments.This White Paper is divided into three parts: SCM SA White paper "Global Warming", 2015/09Part 1: The factsChapter 1: The crusade is absurdThere is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ̳disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.We are being told that ̳a temperature increase of more than 2oC by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented‘. When they hear this, people worry: hasn‘t there already been an increase of 1.9oC? Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1oC every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.Chapter 2: The crusade is costlyDirect aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ̳virtuous‘ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ̳energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.We want to cut our CO2 emissions at any cost: it is a way of displaying our virtue for all to see. To achieve these reductions, we have significantly cut industrial activity and lost jobs. But at least we have achieved our aim of cutting CO2 emissions, haven‘t we? The answer is laughable: apparently not. Global emissions of CO2 have continued to rise, including those generated by France in designing and manufacturing its own products, as the Cour des Comptes clearly states. Quite simply, manufacturing that is held to be environmentally damaging has been relocated. So the same products are now being manufactured in countries that are far less respectful of the environment, and we have lost all the associated jobs. As Baudelaire says, ̳Nature‘s irony combines with our insanity‘.SCM SA White paper "Global Warming", 2015/093Chapter 3: The crusade is pointlessHuman beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth‘s rotation.French policy on CO2 emissions is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector.International agreements on the subject began with the Kyoto Protocol, but the number of countries signing up to this agreement and its descendants are becoming fewer and fewer, now representing just 15% of emissions of greenhouse gases.This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.Part 2: Scientific aspectsHaving looked at the facts and their social impact, we now look at some more or less well- established scientific knowledge.Chapter 1: The natural variability of the climateThere have already been innumerable variations in the climate in the past, some of them enormous (such as glaciations). The main causes are linked to the Sun and the albedo of the cloud layer (does sunlight penetrate right to the ground, or is it reflected back by the clouds?). Human beings obviously have a role to play, but the natural causes of climate variations are never taken into account by the crusaders, who put all the blame on human activity.Chapter 2: Are human beings influencing the climate?One might wonder whether human beings are influencing the climate, with their buildings, transport networks and very civilization. The answer is that their influence is tiny, quite negligible in comparison with natural causes. Nature makes major changes, human beings make small ones, which our natural arrogance lends a significance they simply do not have.SCM SA White paper "Global Warming", 2015/09 4Insurance companies know what is what: the cost of natural phenomena (such as tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions) is ten times greater than the cost of any man-made disaster.Another vital question here: do human beings have the technological ability to change the climate? The answer is no: human beings can do nothing about solar activity, the state of the oceans, the temperature of the Earth‘s magma, or the composition of the atmosphere. On the other hand, human beings are very capable of getting worked up about all sorts of things, of ̳skipping and swooning‘, as Baudelaire put it.We should like to suggest here an especially interesting and original measure, which is the greenhouse effect, only bald people should be allowed to go out on sunny days; people with a full head of hair should be allowed to go out only at night or on rainy days.Chapter 3: The consequences of so-called global warmingOne might wonder about the potential consequences of so-called global warming for human beings and the natural world. The answer is very simple: the natural world will adjust very well, as it has always done. Plants, in particular, would enjoy an increase in CO2 concentrations. In France, the positive effects would far outweigh the negative ones. If there were such a thing as global warming, then we should celebrate. And if it does not exist, then we shall simply have to carry on switching on the central heating nine months a year.Part 3: The IPCCWe are not in a position to question the composition of the IPCC, or its legitimacy and policy decisions, and we shall not do so. However, as mathematicians, we have every right to respond to the following question: if the IPCC‘s work were to be submitted for publication in a reputable scientific journal, would it be accepted? This decision is the task of a referee, in a procedure that is common practice in the sciences.The answer is very simple: no sensible, high-quality journal would publish the IPCC‘s work. The IPCC‘s conclusions go against observed facts; the figures used are deliberately chosen to support its conclusions (with no regard for the most basic scientific honesty), and the natural variability of phenomena is passed over without comment. This is a French measure whereby a ban is imposed on city-center. traffic during periods of heavy pollution, with cars whose registration plates have even numbers and those with odd numbers being barred from the roads on alternate days.SCM SA White paper "Global Warming", 2015/095The IPCC‘s report fails to respect the fundamental rules of scientific research and could not be published in any review with a reading panel.Conclusion: "The mastiff Liberty growls and shows its sharp teeth"(Victor Hugo: Les Châtiments [Castigations])In a democracy, there is an opposition, and this opposition has a right, in principle, to express its views: this is what distinguishes democracy from dictatorship. But when it comes to the questions about global warming that we are talking about here, the opposition – people who do not believe in global warming – have been told to shut up: no public debate, no contradictory discourse, no articles in scientific journals. They have simply been told that the case is proven and it is time to take action.In law, there is a fundamental principle known as the ̳adversarial principle‘. A case can be thrown out of court if the defense is not informed of every known element of the accusation. Even if twenty people have witnessed the abominable criminal commit his offense, if the defense has not had access to blood-sample analyses, the case will be thrown out. In the case of global warming, a number of bodies are telling us they have all the evidence, but refuse to tell us what it is. The data have been processed, but how? Time series have been altered, but why? Some phenomena have been left out of the equation, but on what grounds? We do not know, and we are simply required to keep quiet and do what we are told. No second opinion is permitted.It is on the debris of the fundamental principles of the law and of democracy that this White Paper has been written.SCM SA White paper "Global Warming", 2015/09Climate Book By Japanese Physic’s Professor: ‘The Globe Isn’t Warming Anymore’A climate skeptic book by Japanese physicist and Professor Emeritus Yuh Fukai released in October 2015, was recently released in Kindle version. The title of the book in Japanese is 地球はもう温暖化していない, which means: “The Globe Isn’t Warming Anymore”In his book, Dr. Fukai quotes many scientists such as Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, Dr. Kunihiko Takeda, and Dr. Kiminori Itoh.Also prominently featured are charts by R. J. Donohue et al, Dr. Roy Spencer, and Dr. John Christy.Dr. Fukai writes: “An enormous amount of meteorological balloon data of great worth ignored by IPCC were employed in Christy’s 2015 graph.”CO2 “a good thing” …studies show global greeningDr. Fukai also points out that global vegetation coverage increased by 11% in 29 years, from 1982 to 2010, as increasing CO2 has helped the greening of the Sahel and the Sahara Desert.He contradicts the often heard media claims that drought is spreading globally, writing: “The media spread the word that desertification is progressing globally, but practically the desert is greening through CO2.” […] “Everyone should be aware that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not in itself harmful, but it’s a good thing.”No correlationDr. Fukai also shows that the Earth’s temperature change is not simple and does not correlate at all with CO2. He shows graphs from D. M. Etheridge et al., Mauna Loa Observatory and the temperature data from Moberg et al. (2005).Chart: http://ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txtThe retired Japanese professor writes that at around 1000 A.D. — the Medieval Warm Period — there were no signs showing CO2 concentration was higher.A temperature graph using data from Moberg et al. (2005) shows the Medieval Warm Period appears clearly and that CO2 was in fact around 280 ppm at that time.Warming better for humansIn addition, he writes that from a historical perspective, “warming brought about no trouble to human life.”Fukai notes that in Japan the great famine of Kanei (1640 to 1643) and the great famine of Genroku (1695 to 1696) happened during the Little Ice Age, a dark and gloomy period of crop failures and paranoid witch hunts.He writes: “We have never heard of a famine resulting in a warming period”, and that “global cooling was a terror for humans.”Suppressed viewsHe notes that public opinion in Japan has been almost universally behind the claim that humans are the main cause of warming.Some 91% of Japanese citizens believe it. A shocking number compared to other countries. It is certain the media were in part hugely responsible, he writes.Dissent is rare in Japan“Articles by outspoken journalists overseas, however, have put the brakes on the CO2-made global warming hypothesis. There is no chance of that here in Japan. Japanese journalists have suppressed views that challenge the hypothesis,” Fukai writes.According to Fukai: “Among Japanese earth scientists, only Dr. Shigenori Maruyama has sharply criticized the theory that global warming is caused by CO2 from a paleoclimatology point of view.”But he adds: “Many solar researchers stand for an opinion that solar activity plays a major role in driving the climate.” In Japan, there is Dr. Kunitomo Sakurai and Dr. Hiroko Miyahara.IPCC “scientifically immoral”About the IPCC, he writes: “The IPCC is fixated on global warming being caused by CO2, simply ignore all other factors, and that their attitude is scientifically immoral.”He notes in his book, citing NoTricksZone, that Prof. Hans von Storch “Fears that science is taking a role in political decision processes” and “sea level rise fears are unwarranted because long-term tide gauge data show 21st-century sea level rise will be approximately as much as the 21st century“.Read more at No Tricks Zone*****Bernard Beauzamyhttp://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/11/the-battle-against-global-warming.html#comment-formMONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2015The Battle Against Global Warming: An Absurd, Costly and Pointless CrusadeDavid Jensen emails:Mathematicians Society Outraged by Global WarmingHere is the report in its entirety documenting abuse of scientific method and statistical fraud in the UN's promotion of 'climate change':http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM...Well worth the read.Here's a CNS report on the study:“You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human…history to find [such a] mad obsession,” according to a translated summary of the document released in September by the Paris-based Société de Calcul Mathématique SA.The mathematicians harshly criticized a “crusade [that] has invaded every area of activity and everyone’s thinking," noting that "the battle [against] CO2 has become a national priority."How have we reached this point in a country that claims to be rational?” they ask, adding that mathematicians “do not believe in crusades. They look at facts, figures, comments and arguments.”“There is not a single fact, figure…[or] observation that leads us to conclude the world’s climate is in any way ‘disturbed,” the paper states. “It is variable, as it has always been. … Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet’s overall temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.”Noting that concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have “always” varied, the French mathematicians also said that after processing the raw data on hurricanes themselves, they verified that “they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past.”“We are being told that a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees C[elsius] by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences and absolutely has to be prevented."When they hear this, people worry. Has there not already been an increase of 1.9 degrees C?“Actually, no. The figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1 degree C every hundred years! Of course, these figures, [which] contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention,” the white paper stated.The French mathematicians also said that the UN’s climate models have failed to take into account natural phenomena that affects climate far more than human activity.Human impact on the climate is “tiny, quite negligible in comparison with natural causes,” they point out. “Human beings can do nothing about solar activity, the state of the oceans, the temperature of the Earth’s magna, or the composition of the atmosphere.”Furthermore, the work done by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not meet the basic standards set by reputable scientific journals because its “conclusions go [contrary] to observed facts; the figures used are deliberately chosen to support its conclusions (with no regard for the most basic scientific honesty); and the variability of natural phenomena is passed over without comment.”Even if there were such a thing as global warming, “then we should celebrate,” the mathematicians said. “And if it does not exist, then we simply shall have to carry on switching on the central heating.”“French policy [on] CO2 is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector,” the white paper pointed out, slamming “virtuous” policies that have resulted in a significant loss of industrial activity and the resultant loss of jobs that has left three million French unemployed even as global CO2 emissions continue to rise.“If we were in France to stop all industrial activity (let’s not talk about our intellectual activity, [which] ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all traces of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, noticeable way,” they said.5 comments:Jimmy Joe MeekerNovember 9, 2015 at 9:32 PM
Take the adjustments and estimates out of the surface temperature record and the about 1C rise also goes away. 
ReplytheageofnowNovember 9, 2015 at 11:42 PM
This is one of those topics that you can attack and shred without people's eyes glazing over like they do about politics. I always love to say, "There is a giant ball of fire in the sky that effects the temp in every planet in our solar system yet the exhaust coming out of my car is causing global warming...."
ReplygpondNovember 10, 2015 at 11:03 AM
Yes, this little episode should be included in any updated version of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, should such a thing occur. 
Reply
RepliesRick FitzNovember 10, 2015 at 7:27 PM
Brilliant.Jim MatkinSeptember 24, 2018 at 11:21 AM
Excellent analysis! Puncturing the fudged and useless temperature records of the alarmist science crowd is critical as it shows their anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is only a 'thought experiment' based on 'meaningless conjecture.’Recent support for the finding of natural forces for global warming not fossil fuel emission is in the cyclical data of past glaciation -Paleoclimate Cycles are Key Analogs for Present Day (Holocene) Warm PeriodAUGUST 4, 2017 0 COMMENTS 97 VIEWSAuthor: Andy May / Source: Watts Up With That?Guest Post By Renee HannonAbstractDetailed pattern correlation of Earth’s temperature changes during the past 450 kyrs reveals observations about several cyclic climate patterns. The past four glacial cycles are increasing in duration from 89 kyrs to 119 kyrs. Within these glacial cycles, two warm periods occur about 200 kyrs apart and have strikingly similar temperature characteristics. These two warm patterns suggest processes modifying Earth’s temperature could be repeatable and predictable. In contrast, two other warm periods have different and distinct characteristics. These two warm periods occur during a predominantly elliptical orbit and a predominantly circular orbit, respectively, and on approximately 400 kyr cycles.Preliminary simplified models of astronomical and oceanic controls on temperature variations for the past four warm periods have been developed. Although process interactions are very complex, separating out predominate causes and effects on global temperature should help improve future climate mathematical simulation models. Climate models need to include astronomical as well as oceanic and atmospheric forcing to reliably predict the duration and temperature changes of the future Holocene interglacial Warm period.IntroductionThe Holocene Warm Period was compared to four interglacial warm periods and their glacial cycles during the past 450,000 years using EPICA Dome C isotoperatios and temperature estimates to identify pattern similarities and trends. Interestingly, a hierarchy of correlative events and common patterns occur amongst the glacial cycles and warm periods.Warm periods are anomalous events referred to as interglacial periods within a glacial cycle. Glacial cycles last for approximately 100 kyrs and warm periods range from 10 to 30 kyrs. For simplicity, these glacial cycles and warm periods are referred to as I through V, with I being present day and V being the oldest as defined in Figure 1. Glacial/interglacial transitions known as Terminations (I-V) and common usage names from literature, marine isotope stages(“MIS”), and approximate age are also noted in Figure 1.Figure 1: EPICA Dome C isotope temperature estimates over the past 450 kyrs show four warm periods prior to the present-day Holocene warm. Warm periods last approximately 10-30 kyrs.Calculated temperatures from the Antarctica Dome C data are multiplied by 0.5 to correct to approximate global temperatures rather than polar temperatures. Uncorrected, the magnitude of the delta degree C would be double than what is shown in the figure.Correlation of Glacial CyclesFigure 2 is a traverse which displays the four past glacial cycles. The temperature curves for each cycle are turned sideways with time plotted on the vertical axis. This technique is similar to creating a geologic cross section and enables correlation of events between the past glacial cycles. The key repeating event for each cycle is the rapid onset of warming following abrupt terminations of glacial periods. This significant event was used as a datum for each glacial cycle. Datuming is a useful tool that allows recognition of relative changes between cycles. Very cold is highlighted in blue and warm periods in red. The blue, yellow and green lines are an interpretation of internal correlations within each cycle bounded by bold red lines.Figure 2: A traverse of the past five interglacial-glacial cycles. Cycles are datumed on the Terminations/Onsets. EPICA Dome C isotope temperature estimates are plotted as curves in 1 degree C increments on the horizontal scale (cold to left and warm to right). The vertical scale is time in 20 ka increments. Actual age is plotted on each cycle. Interglacial warm periods are highlighted in red and the coldest portion of the glacial period in blue. Dark red is calculated ratios of warm:cycle.These glacial cycle patterns are what geologists call bottom-loaded sequences. They are well-behaved cycles with the warmest interglacial period, shaded in red, always following the termination of the previous glacial period. The green line within the warm period highlights a brief cooling event that approximately correlates to the 8.2 kyr event in the present-day Holocene. The blue correlation line is the base of the coldest full glacial period shaded in blue which occurs at the end of each cycle. The full glacial period ranges in duration from 35 to 60 kyrs in Cycle V to Cycle II, respectively. In the middle of each cycle there is a mild glacial period consisting of smaller cold stadials and warm interstadials (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles). The yellow lines attempt to correlate these minor stadial events.While there is uncertainty of +/- 3 kyrs in picking the exact timing of events this is not enough to change the main trends and observations. Although these curves are not stretched, stretching would likely improve correlation of the higher frequency events such as the stadials and interstadials. Several observations are evident from the glacial cycle traverse:Duration of glacial cycles are progressively increasing from 89 kyrs in Cycle V to 119 kyrs in Cycle II. Cycle II is 34% longer in duration than Cycle V. The cycles are not spaced equally at 100 kyrs apart. Javier previously challenged the 100 ky cycle (see his Table 1 and Figure 5) over the past 800 kyrs using interglacial peak to peak duration.The full glacial period at the top of each cycle is also increasing in duration from past to present but not necessarily getting much colder between cycles (+/- 1 degree C).Cycle V has the longest warm period and Cycle III the shortest initial warm period. Maximum average warm temperatures are not that different (+/- 1 degree C).Cycle III stands out as having an abbreviated initial interglacial warm followed by a second warm period (MIS 7c). This has been recognized in the literature and is frequently debated as to whether the second warm period is a true interglacial or an interstadial. A similar suppressed interstadial can be correlated to Cycle II (yellow lines). Regardless, MIS 7c is considered to be part of the larger Cycle II and its onset is not as significant as the Termination event.There appears to be an internal event within the interglacial warm periods that correlates to the 8.2 kyr Holocene event. Stadials, or cooling events, also appear correlative within the glacial periods (yellow lines) that have similar patterns suggesting a similar natural process was repeated.Paleoclimate Cycles are Key Analogs for Present Day (Holocene) Warm Period - MotherNature—“Greenhouse Effect Based On ‘Physically Irrelevant Assumptions’Atmospheric scientists Dr. Gerhard Kramm, Dr. Ralph Dlugi, and Dr. Nicole Mölders have just published a paper in the journal Natural Science that exposes the physical and observational shortcomings of the widely-accepted 288 K – 255 K = 33 K greenhouse effect equation.They conclude that this “though experiment” is “based on physically irrelevant assumptions and its results considerably disagree with observations“.Gerhard KrammScrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactABSTRACTIn this paper, we scrutinize two completely different explanations of the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect: First, the explanation of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the World Meteorological Organization (W?MO) quantifying this effect by two characteristic temperatures, secondly, the explanation of Ramanathan et al. [1] that is mainly based on an energy-flux budget for the Earth-atmosphere system. Both explanations are related to the global scale. In addition, we debate the meaning of climate, climate change, climate variability and climate variation to outline in which way the atmospheric greenhouse effect might be responsible for climate change and climate variability, respectively. In doing so, we distinguish between two different branches of climatology, namely 1) physical climatology in which the boundary conditions of the Earth-atmosphere system play the dominant role and 2) statistical climatology that is dealing with the statistical description of fortuitous weather events which had been happening in climate periods; each of them usually comprises 30 years. Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come toknow what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCCJapanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physicalchemist.“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe ofscientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S GovernmentAtmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division ofNOAA.“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner forPhysics, Ivar Giaever.PARIS Accord Based on FraudBy Brendan GodwinWeather Observer and General MeteorologyBureau of Meteorology Mawson Antarctic 1974The Paris Accord is based on fraud. Carbon Dioxide or CO2 is essential for all life on earth. Without it we are all extinct.There is nothing unusual happing with the globe’s temperatures. No unusual warming.Our interglacial warm period peaked 8,000 years ago and we are cooling. We’ve come to the end of this interglacial and are about to enter the next ice age. Humans can do nothing to stop that.The globe has no temperature control knob, it is impossible for humans to control the globe’s temperature.CO2 does not produce warming. There’s not enough of it to do anything.It is warming that produces CO2. It is impossible for the cause to be the effect.CO2 has lagged temperature by 1,000 years for the past 1 mil years and it has never stopped the earth from entering an ice age, even when it was 4,000 ppm.CO2 is the gas of life. We need more not less of it and we should be regulating for more not less emissions. It is needed to grow our food crops.Paris is based on IPCC reports. The IPCC rely on their GCM models. None of the models rely on past climate history but rather a mathematical theory based on refuted, negated, fake and fraudulent science. They all incorporate:A “human fingerprint” or THS (Tropical Hot Spot) on the earth’s climate that doesn’t exist. IPCC’s AR2 report was fraudulently altered to remove scientific reports that were negative of their GHE definition;Lewis Fry Richardson’s flawed atmospheric model equation;Michael Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick graph in AR3;Arrhenius’ flawed hypothesis of the greenhouse effect; Arrhenius invented heat from nothing.The multiplier effect of water vapor feedback. The flawed CO2 increases water vapor hypothesis based on Arrhenius and the Charney report; From observations, water vapor is decreasing.A corrupted peer review process.Then back all this up by fraudulently altering the data to support the failed models that can’t even predict the last 30 years of hindsight.The money wasted on Paris will do absolutely nothing to the globe’s temperatures and is a waste. Paris is economic vandalism disguised as environmentalism. It is the political agenda of the communist movement. A wealth redistribution scheme to get rich countries to give away money to poor countries with the end goal to destroy capitalism.The problem with Turnbull is that he only listens to one side of the science, the side that suits him. There are 32,000 real scientists in the NIPCC who dissent from the IPCC.Politicians need to listen to the real science, not the fraudulent science.During the last ice age CO2 levels dropped to 180 ppm. Plants don’t grow with CO2 at 150 ppm or less. That’s our food crops. If we lower CO2 will face human extinction.It is the interglacial warm period that is causing CO2 to be released from the oceans.Only 3% of annual emissions are from humans. We need more not less to starve off human extinction in the next ice age that is about to hit us.Brendan GodwinWeather Observer and General MeteorologyBureau of Meteorologyhttps://climatism.blog/2018/07/1...WHY HAVE WE BEEN DUPED BY THE UN IPCC ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE?The answer is simple the UN had a different agenda not based on science or the environment. Let by the infamous Maurice Strong the agenda was to change the economic system of the world.Officially, Strong cut his ties to the U.N. Secretariat almost two years ago, as federal investigators homed in on the discovery that back in 1997, while serving as a top adviser to then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan, he took a check for almost $1 million that was bankrolled by Saddam Hussein’s U.N.-sanctioned regime. The check was delivered by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who was convicted last summer in New York Federal Court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials on behalf of Baghdad. Strong denied any wrongdoing and said he would step aside from his U.N. envoy post until the matter was cleared up.At the United Nations, the Curious Career of Maurice StrongSince then, Strong has receded, as he often does, into the shadows. He is currently spending most of his time in China.Strong, from his earliest days, had a deep interest in and fascination for China and has been going to China for more than 40 years in various capacities, personal, United Nations, World Bank and business. He passed away last year in China.I would also discourage any applause for the work of Dr. James Hansen former lead scientist of the UNIPCC.Dr. James Hansen former IPCC researcherHe was a maverick and radical protestor through out his career and guilty of wild false predictions and fudging historical data to prop up a failing thesis about the climate becoming too hot.There is one very prominent scientist Michael Mann who like the main character in George Orwell’s famous allegory, 1984 rewrote history by erasing the Medieval warming period and the Little Ice age. He is a rogue and disrespected in public on the record by > 100 of his science colleagues.Reinventing HistoryThe "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures is the single most influential icon in the global-warming debate, promoted by the UN's transnational climate bureaucracy, featured in Al Gore's Oscar winning movie, used by governments around the world to sell the Kyoto Accord to their citizens, and shown to impressionable schoolchildren from kindergarten to graduation. And yet what it purports to "prove" is disputed and denied by many of the world's most eminent scientists. In this riveting book, Mark Steyn has compiled the thoughts of the world's scientists, in their own words, on hockey-stick creator Michael E Mann, his stick and their damage to science. From Canada to Finland, Scotland to China, Belgium to New Zealand, from venerable Nobel Laureates to energetic young researchers on all sides of the debate analyze the hockey stock and the wider climate wars it helped launch.This graph shows the fudge with the first IPCC report in 1990 including the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age and later removed after Mann’s research in 2001. Later IPCC removed it also.

The following is copied directly from my (mostly outdated) book that I wrote in 2009. It should provide some insight on your question.Chapter 3: The Mistakes We MakeWhen we first learn trading, we tend to make several mistakes that keep us from having any kind of success. In this chapter I will discuss the ones that have affected me the most. Some of these I still struggle with.However, most of the ones I struggle with are ones that an EA can keep me from experiencing.Mistake #1: Too much leverageAs of this writing, some brokers such as FxPro will let you trade 1 full lot for every $200 in your account. This is 1:500 leverage! As exciting as it sounds, it is the easiest way to drain your account. For example, suppose I have $10000 in my account at 1:500 leverage. I could place a trade of 25 lots and only tie up half of my available equity. At this size,each pip would be worth $250. If you bought EUR/USD with a 3 pip spread, it would cost you $750 just to place the trade. Think of it this way, with $5000 tied up in the trade and $5000 free equity, each pip represents FIVE PERCENT of your available equity! That means you would get a margin call after losing just 20 pips!I have a rule about leverage. I never trade more than 1:10 leverage. That means $10000 cash in the account for each 1 lot I trade. That being the case, starting with $500 means you can trade 0.05 lots, which amounts to about $0.50 per pip. That only leaves room for about a 500 pip loss. That means high risk at first, but if you can think of it as a $500 total risk, then it won't be so scary. I'll talk more about this later.Mistake #2: Getting in NOW. Not waitingThere are two problems that most people have when it comes to patience as it pertains to trading. Especially those who trade the 4-hour or daily charts.Problem 1: Not waiting to enterIt could take weeks for a strong entry signal to occur, and we don't want to wait that long. We don't want to wait at all! We want to get in right now. So we guess what the next signal is going to be and trade in such a way that when that signal comes, we are already in position to take advantage of the situation. Let me tell you right now THIS DOESN'T WORK.Problem 2: Not waiting to exitOnce a trade is placed, watching the price fluctuate up and down 20, 30, 50 pips will drive you to drink. Heavily. If you don't know your exit when you place a trade then it might do you some good to step away for at least an hour before making any decisions. My EA, the AME Cross Trader, places a trade then waits for one complete bar to pass before deciding if it's time to set take-profit or begin a trailing stop. Also, when you place a trade, there's only a 50% chance that the trade will move in your favor right from the beginning. It's easy to panic and think you were wrong when the trade immediately goes against you. But if you determined the trend correctly, the trade should come back in your favor. Of course you will endure some drawdown while the trade is open, but if your account can handle the drawdown you should be ok.Someone once said “Good things come to those who wait”. In forex this is true wisdom. Being impulsive will cost you dearly. Knowing when to wait and when to “jump ship” will save you a lot of grief (and money) in the long run.Mistake #3: Tight fixed stopsWhen I first started trading, I would place an order with a 20 or 30 pip stop loss. In almost every case, my stop would be taken and the price would immediately go in my favor and take off in my desired direction. Without me. I would get frustrated, place a new market order with a 30 pip stop loss and watch it happen again and again. Instead of gaining 100 pips or more in a single trade, I would lose 100 pips or more in multiple attempts to catch a move in my chosen direction. Assuming you have calculated the trend correctly,you need to be willing to endure some drawdown before the price moves in your favor. This is especially true if you are trading 1-hour charts or higher. If you set your stop loss at the time of placing your order, then there is a great chance that you will be taken out of the trade with a loss, even if the price moves in the direction you were aiming for.Mistake #4: Not knowing your exitBefore I get into this, I have to admit that this is a very tricky and elusive thing that depends much on your attitude towards winning.Let me tell you a story that demonstrates my point...A man and his new bride were celebrating their honeymoon at a casino. After they had consummated their marriage, the bride fell asleep and the husband was wide awake, so he went downstairs to the casino with $2 that was left over from gambling.He went to the roulette table and placed the $2 on a single number and won, leaving him with $70. He placed the $70 on a new number and won again, leaving him with $1750. This amazing luck continued over and over with black-jack, poker, and other games until he was in possession of over $30000. Finally, he bet all his money on roulette and lost it all in a single bet.The man went back upstairs to his hotel room and when he shut the door, his wife woke up. When she asked where he had been, he told her he couldn't sleep so he went downstairs to gamble. When she asked how he did, he said “I lost $2”.In this same manner, I can place a trade, risking a fixed amount of money. If I lose then I have lost the amount I was willing to lose and nothing more. If I am ahead by, say, 100 pips, I can begin a 70 pip trailing stop. This way I have locked in at least 30 pips profit. This becomes my expectation. Nothing more. If the price continues to move in my favor then I might end with more than 30 pips profit and have a big smile on my face. But if the price immediately goes against me and stops me out, I can't complain about the 70 pips I just gave up. I knew my exit and that's exactly what I got.My Expert Advisor (The AME Cross Trader) does something unusual in terms of locking in profit, which I will explain briefly here.Suppose it places a buy order at the open of a new bar. The assumption is that we are in an uptrend. At the open of the next bar, the AME Cross Trader looks to see if the high of the bar that just completed is at least a certain number of pips above my opening price. If this is the case then I set that high as my limit. The reason is that if we are indeed in an uptrend, unless something unusual happens, the price will reach this level again. I have found this to be true as much as 14 out of 15 times in some currency pairs. By doing this I can capture profits earlier than if I use a trailing stop, then be ready to trade again immediately.To summarize, when I say “know your exit” I don't necessarily mean to know before you place your trade. The AME Cross Trader, for example,waits for at least one full bar to complete before deciding how much profit can be hoped for. Sometimes it takes more than a single bar and tries to set a trailing stop to lock in profit while trying to decide where the ideal exit is.The point I am making is that you should not wait too long after a trade is placed to decide to take profits. Trailing stops are nice but limit orders sure feel better when they are hit. There is a psychological reason for this. Stoploss, even when profit is locked, is hit when the trade is going against you. Limits are hit when the trade is going in your favor. The latter just feels better than the former. :-)Mistake #5: Trusting an EA for the long termThis is another touchy subject. I do believe that an EA can be used for long term growth and cash flow. However, I am not in a position to use one of those. The reason I say this is because at this time I only have a small amount of money to trade with, and this book is about the process of turning $500 into $1000000. A “long term” EA cannot do this with $500. A long term EA will work wonderfully with $50000 or $100000 and create a nice cash flow that we might be able to live on. Unfortunately, the people I wrote this book for do not have $50000 laying around that they can deposit into their forex accounts. We need to rely on a different method that will enable us to build up to, say, $50000, $100000 or even $1000000 so that we can then apply a stable, low-risk EA that will pay our bills for the rest of our lives.Mistake #6: Using a demo account to simulate real tradingThis is where most of my opposition comes from. Everyone says you should use a demo account before you start trading live. I say “yes” but not for the sake of “pretending” to trade a live account. There are some critical elements missing from demo trading that cannot be simulated. We'll get to that in a bit. Here's what you should use a demo account for...● Forward testing your EA: Forward testing of your EA should be done for a time on a demo account, to make sure that you have all your EA parameters set correctly, and to make sure the EA behaves the way you expect it to, especially if you are testing out a new broker. Make sure that the demo account is with the same broker that you have your live account with. This way there will be (almost) no surprises when you switch from demo to live trading.● Mastery of manual trading: There's going to be times when you are trading manually, even if it is only to intervene with a decision that your EA makes. Since this is the case, you need to be good at placing, modifying and closing orders. So good that you can do it in your sleep. A live account is no place for you to place an order of 5 lots when you intended to place a 0.5 lot order, or to place a buy order when you intended on placing a sell order. These types of “rookie” mistakes can be easily overcome on a demo account.Also, there are two really important things that absolutely cannot be simulated on a demo account. I know many people who disagree with this but this has been my personal experience. I don't think yours will vary :-)● Draining and replenishing your account:As I mentioned in a previous chapter, I got so accustomed to draining demo accounts and opening new ones, that it affected my live trading drastically. If you drain a demo account, you can simply open a new one with however much money you desire. If you drain a live account, you have to spend weeks or even months saving up enough money to make another deposit into the account so you can trade again. Also, your confidence in trading is diminished, your likelihood to panic when a trade goes against you increases, and your overall judgement is impaired. If you use a live account with tiny trade sizes (0.01 lots for example) then you can experience all of the emotions that go with winning and losing real money, and learn gradually and inexpensively to deal with them until you can overcome them. People will argue “why risk real money to learn a strategy?”, but I say you're risking even more “real” money by doing it with a demo account.● Watching the pips come and go: With a demo account you can place an order of 5 lots and watch your pips come and go with almost no emotion. But on a live account, an order of 0.1 lots means watching your hard earned dollars come and go over and over, taking you on an emotional roller coaster ride that might eventually cause you to jump off the ride before it is safe to do so. The roller coaster is a good analogy because if you try to jump off anytime before the ride is over, you will get hurt. Badly. But if you just wait until the ride is over then no harm will come to you. Such can easily be the case with forex trading.Mistake #7: Back testing and optimizing on a demo accountNever, ever, ever use a demo account for back testing or optimizing an EA. Always use a live account. Always use THE live account that you will be running your EA on. Always make sure you are logged into the live account before you run a back test or optimization. The reason for this is that the back tester and optimizer both appear to use the MarketInfo() data from the last account you were logged into. Many brokers do not have identical MarketInfo() values between their live and demo accounts. If you don't know what that means then just trust me on this one. It might not seem like much but in back test, a slight difference in pip size, margin level, stop out level, etc. could make the difference between quadrupling your live account or draining it. Or it could mean the difference between all of your orders working on demo but failing to execute on live.Mistake #8: Never taking profitsTaking profits to me is more than just closing a profitable order. This is probably the most likely reason you, or the majority of traders cannot grow their accounts.A new concept; WithdrawalsWhen trading forex, there is misconception about the term"withdrawal". People are convinced that if they take out some of their money, their EA or their trading style will be hindered because they cannot take advantage of larger trade sizes. From my perspective, withdrawing money from your account is something that will happen with or without you. It is a race between you and your broker to see who can "withdraw" the money from your account first.Here is an example: You are a trend follower and you increase your account by 200% over a month's time. Then the trend changes to work against you. One of two things WILL happen. The reversal will "withdraw" most or all of your money and give it to the broker, or YOU will "withdraw" your money and keep it for yourself.If you can repeatedly withdraw money, while keeping enough in the account to continue trading, then you are already well on your way towards a career in forex trading. If you take money out of your account, you cannot lose that money by trading. This is what the brokers fail to tell you when they lure you in to open accounts with them. It is not in their best interest for you to withdraw money. It is in their best interest for THEM to withdraw your money. And they work hard to do this.SummaryOnce you can keep from making these mistakes, then you will have taken your forex trading to the next level.

Since I was a2a, here are a few from my dissertation, and other works in my library:Robb, D. L. (2002). An investigation of self-control and its relationship to ethical attitudes in criminal justice personnel. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, Walden University. An Arbor, MI: ProQuest. (UMI No. 3036984)REFERENCESAgnew, R. (1997). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. In M. McShane & F. P. Williams III (Eds.), Criminological theory (pp. 1-20). New York: Garland. [Reprinted from Criminology, 30(1), pp.47-66, 1992]Akers, R. L. (2000). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (3rd. ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury.Aristotle. (1992). Politics (B. Jowett, Trans). In R. McKeon (Ed.), Introduction to Aristotle (pp. 582-659). New York: Modern Library.Aristotle. (1976). The ethics of Aristotle: The Nicomachean ethics (J. A. K. Thomason, Trans., revised by H. Tredennick). London: Penguin. (Reprinted from The ethics of Aristotle: The Nicomachean ethics, 1953)Babcock, T. P. (1998). Identifying police officers at risk: An empirical analysis of individual characteristics and situational factors related to violent police-citizen encounters. Doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI.Barker, T. (1996). Police ethics: Crisis in law enforcement. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Bartol, C. R. (1996) Police psychology: Then, now, and beyond. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 70-89.Birley, G., & Moreland, N. (1998). A practical guide to academic research. London: Kogan Page Limited.Booth, A., & Osgood, D. W. (1993). The influence of testosterone on deviance in adulthood: Assessing and explaining the relationship. Criminology, 31(1), 93-117.Borum, R., & Stock, H. V. (1993). Detection of deception in law enforcement applicants: A preliminary investigation. Law and Human Behavior, 17(2), 157-166.Brand, D. (1999, August). The future of law enforcement recruiting: The impact of generation X. The Police Chief, 66(8), 52-63.Brown, J., & Grover, J. (1998). The role of moderating variables between stressor exposure and being distressed in a sample of serving police officers. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(2), 181-185.Brown, J. M., & Campbell, E. A. (1994). Stress and policing: Sources and strategies. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.Burton, Jr., V. S., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., & Dunaway, R. G. (1997). Operationalization, rival theories, and adult criminality. In M. McShane & F. P. Williams III (Eds.), Criminological theory (pp. 85-111). New York: Garland. [Reprinted from Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10(3), pp. 213-239, 1994]Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Carona, K. M. (1998). The effects of stress on police officers and police departments. Thesis, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI.Cederblom, J., and Spohn, C. (1991). A model for teaching criminal justice ethics. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 2(2), 201-218.Chaiken, J. M., & Chaiken, M. R. (1982). Varieties of criminal behavior. Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Chamberlin, S. L. (1998). Teaching police ethics utilizing high-road principles & methodology. Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, Washington, DC. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI.Cohen, L. E., & Machalek, R. (1997). The normalcy of crime: From Durkheim to evolutionary ecology. In M. McShane & F. P. Williams III (Eds.), Criminological theory (pp. 112-134). New York: Garland. [Reprinted from Rationality and society, 6(2), pp. 286-308, April 1994]Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Procedures of the New York Police Department. (1995). In P. A. Winters (Ed.), Policing the police (pp. 28-44). San Diego: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Procedures of the New York Police Department, 1993, Author)Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Delattre, E. J. (1994). Character and cops: Ethics in policing. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Dion, K. L., & Earn, B. M. (1981). The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice. In E. Aronson (Ed.), Readings about the social animal (3rd ed.) (pp. 281-292). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. [Reprinted from The journal of personality and social psychology 32(5), 1975]Dwyer, W. O., Prien, E. P., & Bernard, J. L. (1990). Psychological screening of law enforcement officers: A case for job relatedness. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 17(3), 176-182.Elliott, D. S. (1994). Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and termination—the American Society of Criminology 1993 presidential address. Criminology, 32(1), 1-21.Federal Bureau of Investigation (1997, October). Public corruption evolution and innovation. The Investigator. Washington, DC: Author.Felkenes, G. T. (1984). Attitudes of police officers toward their professional ethics. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 12, 211-220.Fishman, E. (1994). "Falling back" on natural law and prudence: A reply to Souryal and Potts. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 5 (2), 189-203.Fosdick, R. P. (1974). The integrity of the European police in 1914. In L. W. Sherman (Ed.), Police corruption: A sociological perspective (pp. 61-70). Garden City, NY: Anchor Press. (Reprinted from The integrity of the European police in 1914, 1915)French, P. A. (1992). Dirty hands. In P. Madsen & J. M. Shafritz (Eds.), Essentials of government ethics (pp. 243-257). New York: Meridian. (Reprinted from Ethics in government, pp. 15-24, 1983, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall)Fuld, L. F. (1971). Police administration: A critical study of police organizations in the United States and abroad. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith. (Reprinted from Police administration: A critical study of police organizations in the United States and abroad, 1909)Fyfe, J. J. (1996). Training to reduce police-civilian violence. In W. A. Geller & H. Toch (Eds.), Police violence (pp. 165-179). New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Gibbs, J. J., Giever, D., & Martin, J. S. (1998). Parental management and self-control: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(1), 40-70.Girodo, M. (1991). Drug corruption in undercover agents: Measuring the risk. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 361-370.Goldsmith, T. H. (1991). The biological roots of human nature: Forging links between evolution and behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.Goldstein, H. (1975). Police corruption: A perspective on its nature and control. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Gottfredson, M. R., & Polakowski, M. (1995). Determinants and prevention of criminal behavior. In N. Brewer & C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology and policing (pp. 63-79). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, Jr., R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1997). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. In M. McShane & F. P. Williams III (Eds.), Criminological theory (pp. 175-200). New York: Garland. [Reprinted from Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 30(1), pp. 5-29, 1993]Greene, J. C. (1990). Three views on the nature and role of knowledge in social science. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 227-245). Newbury Park, NJ: Sage.Guralnik, D. B., & Friend, J. H. (Eds.). (1968). Webster's new world dictionary of the American language, college edition (12th ed.). Cleveland: World Publishing.Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1981). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. In E. Aronson (Ed.), Readings about the social animal (3rd ed.) (pp. 52-68). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. (Reprinted from Naval research reviews, September 1973, Department of the Navy)Henderson, J. H., & Simon, D. R. (1994). Crimes of the criminal justice system. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1993). Commentary: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 47-54.Holden, R.N. (1980). A study of motivation and job satisfaction in the Houston Police Department. Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI.Holy Bible: New living translation. (1996). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.Houston Police Department. (2000). Houston Police Department online. Houston: Author. Retrieved February 20, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ci. houston.tx.us/departme/police/recruiting.htmHuman Rights Watch. (1998). Shielded from justice: Police brutality and accountability in the United States. New York: Author.Hyams, M. T. (1990). The relationship of role perception and narcissism to attitudes toward professional ethical behavior among police officers. Doctoral dissertation, The United States International University, San Diego, CA. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI.The Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department. (1995). Brutality in the Los Angeles Police Department. In P. A. Winters (Ed.), Policing the police (pp. 17-27). San Diego: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department. 1991. Author)Inwald, R. (1987). Use of psychologists for selecting and training police. In H. W. More & P. C. Unsinger (Eds.), Police managerial use of psychology and psychologists (pp. 107-130). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.James, W. (1974). Pramatism. In R. P. Perry (Ed.), Pragmatism: And four essays from the meaning of truth. New York: Meridian. (Reprinted from Pragmatism, 1907)Johnston, M. (1992, winter). Corruption as a process: Lessons for analysis and reform. Police Studies, 15(4), 156-166.Katz, R. S. (1999). Building the foundation for a side-by-side explanatory model: A general theory of crime, the age-graded life-course theory, and attachment theory. Western Criminology Review. 1(2). Retrieved November 13, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http:// www.wcr.sonoma.edu/v1n2/katz.htmlKirkcaldy, B. (1993). Job stress and satisfaction: International police officers. Psychological Reports, 72, 386.Kirkcaldy, B., & Cooper, G. L. (1995). Work stress and health in a sample of U.S. police. Psychological Reports, 76, 700-702.Kleinig, J. (1990). Teaching and learning police ethics: Competing and complementary approaches. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 1-18.Kleinig, J. (1996). The ethics of policing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Klockars, C. B. (1996). A theory of excessive force and its control. In W. A. Geller & H. Toch (Eds.), Police violence (pp. 1-22). New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Klockars, C. B., Ivkovich, S. K., Harver, W. E., & Hagerfeld, M. R. (2000, May). The measurement of police integrity. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved December 28, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/nij/181465. txtThe Knapp Commission (1974). Narcotics and the police in New York. In L. W. Sherman (Ed.), Police corruption: A sociological perspective (pp. 129-152). Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.Kniffen, G. S. (1996). Wanted dead or alive: Ethical police leadership. Texas Police Journal, 44(1), 5-9.Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Langer, J. H. (1987). Corruption of public officials: An inevitable consequence of international drug traffic. In D. H. Bracey (Ed.), Managing police corruption: International perspectives (pp. 293-315). Chicago: Office of International Criminal Justice, The University of Illinois at Chicago.Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31(3), 301-325.Lersch, K. M., & Mieczkowski, T. (1996). Who are problem-prone officers? An analysis of citizen complaints. American Journal of Police, 15(3), 23-44.Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Lorr, M., & Strack, S. (1994, March). Personality profiles of police candidates. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50(2), 200-207.Machiavelli, N. (1910). The prince (N. H. Thomson, Trans.). In C. W. Elliot (Ed.), The five-foot shelf of books: The Harvard classics, Vol. 36 (pp. 3-90). New York: Collier Press.Madsen, D. (1983). Successful dissertations and theses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking Press.Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (1998). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Meloy, J. M. (1994). Writing the qualitative dissertation: Understanding by doing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Milgram, S. (1981). Behavioral study of obedience. In E. Aronson (Ed.), Readings about the social animal (3rd ed.) (pp. 23-37). San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. [Reprinted from The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 1963]Murphy, P. V., Caplan, D. G. (1989). Fostering integrity. In R. G. Dunham, and G. P. Alpert (Eds.). Critical Issues in Policing. (2nd ed.) (pp. 304-324). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1997). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. In M. McShane & F.P. Williams III (Eds.), Criminological Theory (pp. 305-334). New York: Garland. [Reprinted from Law and Society Review, 27(3), pp. 467-496, 1993]National-Louis University. (1995). Ethics in government: Living our personal and professional philosophies. A curriculum outline for the U.S. Customs Service. Northern Virginia/Washington, DC: Author.Neubauer, R. S. (1999, August). Police use of force in America: An IACP update. The Police Chief, 66(8), 6.Office of Personnel Management. (2000). 2001 salary tables for law enforcement officers. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 20, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.opm.gov/oca/01tables/LEOann/html/01leotbl. txtPlato (1992). The republic (A. D. Lindsay, Trans.). New York: Knopf. (Reprinted from The republic, 1935)Pollock-Byrne, J. M. (1989). Ethics in crime and justice: Dilemmas and decisions. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Pollock, J. M. (1993). Ethics and the criminal justice curriculum. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 4 (2), 377-390.Pollock, J. M. (1994). Ethics in crime and justice: Dilemmas and decisions (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Pollock, J. M., & Becker, R. F. (1995). Law enforcement ethics: Using officers' dilemmas as a teaching tool. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 6(1), 2-20.Punch, M. (1985). Conduct unbecoming: The social construction of police deviance and control. New York: Tavistock Publications.Punch, M. (1989). Researching police deviance: A personal encounter with the limitations and liabilities of field-work. British Journal of Sociology, 40(2), 177-204.Sam Houston State University. (2000). Enrollment Summary by College. Retrieved February 19, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.shsu.edu/~ird_www/college5.htmlSampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Sherman, L. (1991). Learning police ethics. In M. Braswel, B. R. McCarthy, & B. J. McCarthy (Eds.). Justice, crime and ethics (pp. 97-114). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.Sherman, L. W. (1974). Becoming bent: Moral careers of corrupt policemen. In L. W. Sherman (Ed.), Police corruption: A sociological perspective (pp. 191-208). Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.Sherman, L. W. (1974a). A comparative view in history: Introduction. In L. W. Sherman (Ed.), Police corruption: A sociological perspective (pp. 40-46). Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.Sherman, L. W. (1974b). An interactionist view: Introduction. In L. W. Sherman (Ed.), Police corruption: A sociological perspective (pp. 171-208). Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.Sherman, L. W. (1974c). Introduction: Toward a sociological theory of police corruption. In L. W. Sherman (Ed.), Police corruption: A sociological perspective (pp. 1-39). Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.Skolnick, J. H., and Leo, R. A. (1992). The ethics of deceptive interrogation. Criminal Justice Ethics, 11(1), 3-12.Slayton, J. (2000). Establishing and maintaining interagency information sharing. JAIBG Bulletin. Office of Justice Programs. (NCJ No. 178281) Retrieved February 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http:// www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/ojjdp/178281.pdfSouryal, S. S., & Potts, D. W. (1993). "What am I supposed to fall back on?" Cultural literacy in criminal justice ethics. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 4 (1), 15-41.Spader, D. J. (1994). Teaching due process: A workable method of teaching the ethical and legal aspects. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 5(1), 81-101.Sulc, L. B. (1995). Police brutality is not a widespread problem. In P. A. Winters (Ed.), Policing the police (pp. 79-84). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.Summers, A. (1994). Official and confidential: The secret life of J. Edgar Hoover. New York: Pocket Star.Taylor, W., & Braswell, M. (1978). Issues in police and criminal psychology. Washington, DC: University Press.Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (1999, August). Research guidelines: Conducting research in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Huntsville, TX: Author.Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Farnworth, M., & Jang, S. J. (1997). Testing interactional theory: An examination of reciprocal causal relationships among family, school, and delinquency. In M. McShane & F. P. Williams III (Eds.), Criminological theory (pp. 371-403). New York: Garland. [Reprinted from The journal of criminal law & criminology, 82(1), pp. 3-35, 1991]Tong, R. (1998). Feminist ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Retrieved February 20, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http:// Feminist Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Trochim, W. M. (2001). Research methods knowledge base. Cornell University. Retrieved August 31. 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/United States General Accounting Office (1998). Law enforcement: information on drug-related police corruption: Report to the Honorable Charles B. Rangel, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Author.University of Houston, Downtown. (2000). Student head count enrollment. Retrieved February 19, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.dt.uh.edu/about/irp/ commonDataSet9900/wordFormatWeb3.htmlVan Voorhis, P. (1994). Psychological classification of the adult male prison inmate. Albany, NY: State University of New York.Vazquez Nava, M. S. (1992). Controlling corruption as a social responsibility. Police Studies, 15(4), 156-166.Violanti, J. M., & Aron, F. (1993). Sources of police stressors, job attitudes, and psychological distress. Psychological Reports, 72(3, Pt. 1), 899-904.Waddington, P. A. J. (1999). Police (canteen) sub-culture. British Journal of Criminology, 39(2), 287-311.Walden University. (1997, June). Walden student handbook: KAM programs. Minneapolis, MN: author.Walsh, A. (1995). Biosociology: An emerging paradigm. Westport, CN: Praeger.Washington, G. (1999). George Washington, September 17, 1796, farewell address. In J. C. Fitzpatrick (Ed.), The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources, 1745-1799. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved March 22, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://rs6.loc.gov/cgibin/query/r?ammem/ mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw350045)) (Originally written in 1796)Wilson, J. Q. (1994). Emotions, reason, and character. Criminal Justice Ethics, 13(2), 83-92.Winter, D. A. (1993). Slot rattling from law enforcement to law breaking: A personal construct theory exploration of police stress. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 6, 253-267.Worden, R. E. (1996). The causes of police brutality: Theory and evidence on police use of force. In W. A. Geller & H. Toch (Eds.), Police violence (pp. 23-51). New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Wuensche, R. (1999, August 15). Experts find bosses are a pain. The Houston Chronicle, p. 1D.Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Psychopathy:Ackley, C. N. (2009, March 3). Sexual assault and offender characteristics. Behavioral Science Education and Consultation Services. Presented at the Conference on Crimes Against Women, Dallas, Texas.American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.Clay, K. (2013, May 5). The Top 10 Jobs That Attract Psychopaths. Forbes. Retrieved from: The Top 10 Jobs That Attract PsychopathsGazzaniga, M. S. (2011). The ethical brain: The science of our moral dilemmas. New York: HarperCollins.Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York: Pocket Books.Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empiricalconstruct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217-246.Hare, R. D., Neumann, C. S., & Mokros, A. (2015, February 2).The PCL-R assessmentof psychopathy development, properties, debates, and new directions. Finaldraft of a chapter to appear in C. J. Patrick (Ed.). Handbook of Psychopathy. (2nd Ed.). New York City: Guilford Press.Henderson, J. H., & Simon, D. R. (1994). Crimes of the criminal justice system. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.Hogenboom, M. (2013, July 24). Psychopathic criminals have empathy switch. Retrieved from: Psychopaths 'have empathy switch'Holtzman, S., & Strube, M. J. (2013, July). People with dark personalities tend to create a physically attractive veneer. Social Psychological and Personality Science (4)4. 461-467.Kulbarsh, P. (2008, April 21). The malignant narcissist. Retrieved from: The Malignant NarcissistMeffert , H., Gazzola , V., den Boer, J. A., Bartels, A. A. J., Keysers, C. (2013, July 24). Reduced spontaneous but relatively normal deliberate vicarious representations in psychopathy. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 136 (8), 2550 – 2562. Retrieved from: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/brain/136/8/2550.full.pdfMyers, D. G. (2012). Social psychology (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Others:Adams, H. E., & Sutker, P. B. (2004). Comprehensive handbook of psychopathology (3rd ed.). New York: Springer.Alison, L. (Ed.) (2005). The forensic psychologist’s Casebook: Psychological profiling and criminal investigation. Cullompton, UK: Willan.American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.Bartol, C. R. (1996) Police psychology: Then, now, and beyond. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 70-89.Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2008). Introduction to forensic psychology research and application (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2008). Current perspectives in forensic psychology and criminal behavior (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2011). Criminal behavior: A psychological approach. (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Canter, D. (2006). In R. D. Keppel (Ed.). Offender profiling (2nd ed.) (pp. 49-58). Mason, OH: Thompson.Canter, D. (2000). Criminal shadows: The inner narratives of evil. Irving, TX: Authorlink Press.Canter, D. (2008). Criminal psychology: Topics in applied psychology. London, England: Hodder.Cohen, L. E., & Machalek, R. (1997). The normalcy of crime: From Durkheim to evolutionary ecology. In M. McShane & F. P. Williams III (Eds.), Criminological theory (pp. 112-134). New York: Garland. [Reprinted from: Rationality and society, 6(2), pp. 286-308, April 1994]Conroy, M. A., & Murrie, D. C. (2007). Forensic assessment of violence risk: A guide for risk assessment and risk management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Curie, J., & Tekin, E. (2006). Does Child Abuse Cause Crime? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State UniversityDion, K. L., & Earn, B. M. (1981). The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice. In E. Aronson (Ed.), Readings about the social animal (3rd ed.) (pp. 281-292). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. [Reprinted from The journal of personality and social psychology 32(5), 1975]Doidge, N. (2007). The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science. New York: Penguin.Duntley, J. D., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.) (2008). Evolutionary forensic psychology: Darwinian foundations of crime and law. New York: Oxford University Press.Eagleman, D., (2011). Incognito: The secret lives of the brain. New York: Pantheon Books.Ekman, P. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York: Norton.Elliott, D. S. (1994). Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and termination—the American Society of Criminology 1993 presidential address. Criminology, 32(1), 1-21.Ewing, C. P. (2008). Trials of a forensic pathologist: A casebook. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Gazzaniga, M. S. (2005). The ethical brain: The science of our moral dilemmas. New York: Harper.Gazzaniga, M. S. (2011). Whose in charge? Free will and the science of the brain. New York: Harper.Godwin, G. M. (2001). Criminal psychology and forensic technology: A collaborative approach to effective profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Gross, H. (1911). Criminal psychology: A manual for judges, practitioners, and students. (H. M. Kallen, Trans.). New York: Little, Brown, and Company. (Original work published 1905)Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of Interrogations and confessions: A handbook. Chichester, England: Wiley.Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1981). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. In E. Aronson (Ed.), Readings about the social animal (3rd ed.) (pp. 52-68). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. (Reprinted from Naval research reviews, September 1973, Department of the Navy)Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York: Pocket Books.Hickey, E. W. (Ed.). (2006). Sex crimes and paraphilia. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall.Jung, C. G. (1971). The portable Jung. J. Campbell (ed.). R. F. C. Hull (trans.). New York: Viking Press.Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Keppel, R. D. (2006). Offender profiling (2nd ed.). Mason, OH: Thompson.Krahe, B. (2013). The social psychology of aggression (2nd Ed.). New York: Psychology Press.Larrabee, G. J. (2005). Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach. New York: Oxford.Liebert, J. A., Birnes, W. J. (2017). Psychiatric criminology: A roadmap for rapid assessment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Lombroso-Ferrero, G. (2004). Criminal man. In J. E. Jacoby (Ed.). Classics of criminology (3rd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. [Reprinted from Criminal Man: According to the classification of Cesare Lombroso. (1911). New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.]McKinlay, A., & McVittie, C. (2008). Social psychology and discourse. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.McMenamin, G. R. (2002). Forensic linguistics: Advances in forensic stylistics. New York: CRC Press.Milgram, S. (1981). Behavioral study of obedience. In E. Aronson (Ed.), Readings about the social animal (3rd ed.) (pp. 23-37). San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. [Reprinted from The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 1963]Myers, D. G. (2012). Social psychology (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.O’Toole, M. E., & Bowman, A. (2011). Dangerous instincts: How gut feelings betray us. New York: Penguin.Patten, B. M. (2004). Truth, knowledge, or just plain bull: How to tell the difference, a handbook of practical logic and clear thinking. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Perry, B. D., & Szalavitz M. (2006).The boy who was raised as a dog: And other stories from a child psychiatrist's notebook child psychiatrist's notebook--what traumatized children can teach us about loss, love, and healing. New York: Basic Books.Pincus, J. H. (2001). Base instincts: What makes killers kill? New York: MetroBooks.Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York: Viking.Rabon, D. (1994). Investigative discourse analysis. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Schlesinger, L. B. (2007). Explorations in criminal psychology: Clinical syndromes with forensic implications (2nd Ed.). Springfield, IL: Thomas.Sharot, T. (2017). The influential mind: What the brain reveals about our power to change others. New York: Henry Holt.Tasman, A., Kay, J., & Ursano, R. J. (2013). The psychiatric interview: Evaluation and diagnosis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Weiner, I. B., & Hess, A. K. (2006). The handbook of forensic psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Wright, R. (1995). The moral animal: Why we are the way we are: The new science of evolutionary psychology. New York: Vintage Books.Zimbardo. P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.