Okay, welcome everybody to this week's CMC Markets Weekly Charting Analysis webinar. My name's Jasper Lawler, I'm hosting today. We're just going to zip through this risk warning that you see on the screen here. Okay, well last week was literally one of the maddest markets I've seen in a while. There was some serious volatility going on and I hope some of you are able to participate there because there were some big movements we saw. You don't see that kind of thing every week, particularly in the currencies and I think going into this week it's going to be currencies that are going to be the focus again. It's hard to imagine that kind of volatility if it can be repeated but there's been a lot of cause for the closer we get to the FMC, the Federal Reserve, the tightening interest rates, the more volatility we're going to see in markets just because they've had such an impact on asset prices since they began their QE program. The first stage hiking rates, second possible stage of selling off some of their treasury holdings or mortgage backed securities is going to have a pretty massive impact on markets and that's why we saw the likes of, if we just jump over to the old Euro chart here, why we saw this take place. This is the daily chart and you can see, started down here, sub 106 got as high up here as over 110. It was close to a 500-pip daily range and that's just the daily chart. If you look in today you can see how crazy it was there and then not only that but then the next day, pretty much retraced almost all the gains down to the sort of breakout area here. You can see if I draw this line in on the Euro chart. This is where we bust up, broke through, closed there and then the next day just rally straight up to those peaks again and at the moment it looks like we're pushing up and making gains and that's been my feeling as posted in the chart forum here over the past few days that we see something like that. We're a bit of a long tail there so understand a bit of a dip but if people are going to be, even though I think most people's outlook is still fairly dollar bullish, Euro weakness given the divergence and monetary policies, when you see a move like that, that shakes a lot of people out of their positions and so unsurprising that we haven't even seen a test of the lows again and we could see this is my line in the sand which we've basically already kind of touched so that's probably not much of a marker here and I'd say we're pushing maybe further up towards this 113 mark could be where this is headed. You're still sort of going against the longer term trend here. You remind ourselves, you look at this weekly chart, not exactly a friendly place for bulls but nonetheless I actually posted this chart a while ago. Actually now I've got the line altered on this chart for some reason but actually connect these two lows. Look at that. That's not far off. All long wicks coming off this trend line so you know there's a possibility here we're certainly still in a downtrend but we've seen a sharp reversal, did correspond with that trend line. We actually pushed through this low back over here but nonetheless if you look at the size of these declines historically we're through that and so chance of a turnaround here but at the moment we've got to be a bit cautious because really this trend is still down. This is kind of the lower low, lower high, lower low so by default we're expecting another lower high somewhere before that high to eventually roll over again if this trend is to continue but some indications based on the volatility around the bottom here that maybe we went and for those unaware basically the reason for this jump around in prices at the tail end of last week and so we're looking at the Euro chart here but may as well look at the pound as well because it was pretty similar, pretty massive. Nice false break on cable on retrospect because you have this low here, false break lower a lot of people with fell stops underneath the low, pushed down but then ended up closing above and obviously just rocketed all the way up so hopefully some were able to benefit on breakouts above here for example pushing up to these highs but even if you weren't there was a couple of opportunities post that to get in close to these lows again in the anticipation that there is going to be some follow through on this massive false breakout. What was the cause? Really the Fed meeting last week. The FMC were just a lot more dovish than expected. They did take out the patient's language as most people had foretold but the big change up as we had actually highlighted in our commentary was a distinct possibility was that they actually scaled back their growth and inflation forecasts and kind of put back the dots on their dot chart implying where they think interest rates will be at certain periods in the future so sort of scaling back their interpretation of the economy that was interpreted as dovish and that's why we saw these massive moves in and around markets. So what to look for this week? Tomorrow is going to be pretty big particularly for this pair that we've got on the screen. We've got both UK and US CPI data out coming out tomorrow. Obviously that's a pretty good day for comparing the outlooks for the British pound of the US dollar. The dollar is the world reserve currency so that tends to be the more dominating force but nonetheless if we see some clear cut difference here where inflation is improving in the US because it's not in the UK or at a faster pace in the US than it is in the UK then we can expect this general down climb to continue but I think it probably would take quite a divergence of data to undo some of the large moves that we've seen here and I think we are likely going to at least push up to this towards this spike high again just to kind of test the determination of bulls and bears up at that key level that caused the big reversal back down here so obviously this was massive because it caused that reversal up here but equally this was massive because it caused the reversal right back down again so that was just the remarkable thing about what happened and again this level kind of proved important and you know this is the line of the sand down here at the moment this 147.4 so it looks like it's holding pretty well and so you'd imagine the next kind of key test even though we've got these loads over here which are kind of preventing the moves high at the moment I think really this is the big one and so CPI data will be key there's quite a lot of US data this week so we've got durable goods following on Wednesday and then fourth quarter GDP on Friday I think is that the could be the final revision final revision yes that's right so actually expected to be provided slightly higher so that will not really you know so one thing to kind of look for here is how does the inflation and growth compare with what the Fed are forecasting because that's quite a favorable situation for US stocks and if we flip over to the US 30 for example you can see that we've this is the weekly chart which I think is quite instructive at the moment we've got this you know this is kind of my highlighted breakout and looking at ever since we're up here didn't get through there and then we've formed a bullish engulfing candlestick where this body is engulfed this body of this you know the low hasn't been engulfed but the body has so that's the definition needed by the Japanese it's not an outside week as defined in Western bar graph techniques but it is a bullish engulfing according to West according to Japanese so quite a strong pattern either way and you know that's you know this situation where the Fed are forecasting something quite dovish and so they're keeping interest rates low but actually the real in date the real data is showing a better better than forecast so for the time being that would be a positive because the economy is doing well but the Fed are responding with kind of dovish policy eventually if the data continues to improve then I think that's going to be a negative for markets because the Fed may have to adjust their commentary and shift it to be a bit more hawkish and maybe start leaning towards a rate hike in June or September but very simply you know a rate hike is not too positive for stocks obviously it looks like it's on the cards it was still pushing into all-time highs so it's not been devastating yet but it's mostly the cause of these sell-offs is when it looks like that rate hike is getting closer than previously thought so if we do while we are on the let's stick with indices while we're on the US 30 if we got down to the daily chart so you saw we had that bullish engulfing you know that quite something that encompasses all of these moves up here on the weekly candle but at the moment we've just bounced off this just shy about 18197 was the peak but at this basically bouncing off this 18200 round number just shy of the all-time highs here we'll forward it in March and obviously that next round number target is just above which is what we fell down from before at 1800 so not surprising to get a bit of a pullback from there in combination with these peaks I think for the sort of bullish outlook to be maintained this is the previous swing high now we have kind of already tested that so that's what makes that potentially not as strong because we didn't just push way above that and come back to it which is the ideal for this previous high acting as then support so that will be the first consideration but I think given that we've already busted through it there is a possibility that we could drop down to this low here and then maybe a false break below and then push up again but if that bullish engulfing pattern is to hold any weight then I think that would probably be a level that we need to hold also something I occasionally look for on the RSI here because I've got an inverse head and shoulders pattern something I mentioned on the chart forum prior to this big break higher sometimes when the reversal and the prices doesn't look too clear they look on the RSI and suddenly actually there was quite a nice little inverse head and shoulders which we've got a break above on this candle and then we had to pull back on this candle we held above the low we've got this big spike down here and then pushed all the way up and this obviously was the same day when US stocks all that massive volatility on Wednesday was obviously the same fed day that caused that volatility in the US dollar I guess an index that we're all interested particularly here in the UK is the UK 100 as we trade it as you can see we're above the 7000 mark we closed above there for the week and for Friday last week and that makes marks quite a game changer noted in the chart forum today that we do have this rising trend line connecting these two peaks it's not generally rising trend lines connecting peaks are not as significant particularly if we are seeing a trend acceleration here it would just be a good indication once we break through it that we are getting that acceleration at the moment we're pulling off it a bit there hasn't even lasted too long we're already bouncing back a bit off of this peak here so harder to see when we've got a strong trend of the daily chart but maybe if we drop down to a 4-hour chart you can see this was the kind of like high-high, high-low, high-high and then dropping down towards that and you can see that high that's what we've bounced off here I've got my line down here you know it's just a bit more conservative but we're getting a strong bounce off here again sometimes lines on the RSI can be instructive so you can see that we've got a few touches on this rising trend line and we've got a breakout here so that just adds a bit of extra weight to this move above 7000 if this trend line does prove to be significant there may be a retouch of this trend line before pushing higher but it's like another place to get in along the market in terms of UK data I mentioned the CPI we also have retail sales on Thursday retail sales have been fairly decent actually in the UK somewhat supported by the by lower oil prices but what's been holding UK markets back a little bit is actually we looked at that chart the British pound against the dollar we thought the pound game pounded actually a bunch against the weighted basket of currencies the British pound's been pretty strong and that's actually been hurting exports a little bit and it's kind of been impacting the economy in general and holding it back a little bit but you know should you know should there be a reversal of fortunes and the euro push higher a bit that actually gives some scope for euro pound to push higher a bit and we've actually already seen some evidence of that so quite a strong looking reversal in euro pound helps UK exporters a bit and that has somewhat corresponded with this break above 7000 let me just show you that euro pound chart so you can see here that we got that bullish and golfing again off the low then we got a so that was the that was the breakout area got a push above a test pushed above here broke above that peak so now suddenly the downtrend's losing strength a bit we're turning into a bit of an uptrend push above this again Wednesday at what large ranging day and pushed up into the high up here pull back test of that previous high again so this is all characteristic of an uptrend high high high low without even dropping close to the lows it's just coming off the peaks which is the sign of a strong trend as continuing at the moment we had been closing below this low for March 2nd but it looks like today we're pushing above and if we do get a close above this high up here you know that's definitely a major progress in terms of the year the pounds losing some of its strength against this weighted basket occurrences which should be good for UK economy and you know what's going to be the economy should pass through to the consumer and be good for retail sales we're not quite there yet but this is something to keep in mind for those following individual stocks big one is that we've got easy jet earnings on Thursday another one to note is that flipping back around well let's watch the video a quick look at the Germany 30 because that really has been the strongest performing dollar market index this year if we just take a time to look at the extent of this rally it's been quite huge you know this was obviously the consolidation area that we'd be dealing with for a while and then as QE was announced in January or the expectation was that it would be announced boom it's gone up to two handles basically picking it around 12,000 and 11,000 didn't really make much of a dent but this has been a really strong rally and we've got up past 12,000 we actually hit 12,220 I believe so we're getting a pullback from this 12,000 level which you know a bit of an indecisive candlestick here with basically sort of spinning top side pattern so not giving us too much of a clue either way but wouldn't be surprising if we've got a bit of a dip down maybe to the lows of these candlesticks I've got some lines drawn in here based on the daily chart and so this is a sort of interim low which has actually been kind of holding okay you can see this range of these candlesticks kind of in what's been supporting us and we've got to push up we didn't even get as far as 12,100 and we've actually rolled over since they're still holding for now but I wouldn't be surprised if we've got a dip down to a retest to the 21 day moving average and these peaks from back in early bottom arch you know this day has not closed yet so don't fall for that mistake where you think this is a done deal because the candlestick looks as it is right now but in the day that could be a tall wick and we could be have a long green body up here with a higher close but you know if the day does close like this and it's a bit weak then that might be the first stage towards this move down here also look at the RSI again you can see our kind of equivalent rising trend line we do have one for price that works quite well I think something along those lines that's not broken yet and again that's maybe we get a kind of what would be quite a nice pattern would be if it spiked down these peaks and then closed above the line again that could be a good indication to get along the market again but the fact that this rising trend line has been broken from the RSI suggests that we could have a move down to there and should we get a close below this line and the 21 is quite a confluence of support there if we do get a close below that then we could be looking at a move lower and we'll have to look for more opportunities along the market down here I've got a quick I'm going to switch back to currencies now I've got a request for Pound Swiss I thought that was on my watchlist here but I think I took it out let me just load that up now this term Pound Swiss looks I haven't actually looked at this for a while but it looks pretty similar to the Dollar Swiss chart what we basically have this if we look at the weekly chart can see it better kind of support going through here this is where we were bouncing off bouncing bouncing and and now we've spiked through there followed through so yeah it looks pretty similar to the Dollar Swiss chart and I did mention I think last week on the Dollar Swiss chart let me just see if I can pull that up can see that's probably pretty similar even more extreme rebound here and did I actually end up putting that down for him no I did not I think maybe I tweeted it but yeah you can see that Pound's a bit more correlated with Euro so you know it's more kind of flat around the peg the Dollar was just moving higher in spite of that peg you can see that's where we crashed we've moved up to this kind of breakdown area so yeah definitely an opportunity here we've already moved down a bit but plenty of room to the downside I don't quite know how I would I mean we've let's move back to the pound again since that's what the question was on did I keep that chart I didn't yeah so I think that weekly chart is the instructive one you have to be careful in these situations about nothing you know don't sell out the lows and pull back but certainly if we kind of bounce not certainly but a possibility if we bounce back to here where we broke down there that would certainly be an opportunity but you know we may not ever get there so that's the risk if you do feel you know I'm not quite sure what the inclination is here Mark the way I'm looking at this is this is a possible point in which we roll over the market lower I don't I don't necessarily see this as a by the dip scenario in the long term we definitely could get a push higher back up to this breakout area but I would you know I'd be pretty wary of this market hope that helps we have had the the SMB saying recently that there is going to be no new floor put in the market no new peg probably pretty bullish the Swiss franc I've got about five minutes left here so let's shift on over to commodities for me one I've just been really following up recently is copper one of the bigger movers today got a nice old follow through on Friday so again quite a lot going on in this chart let's table what we're going to see here this is the weekly chart this was where we made that big spike and then big reversal so this was our first clue that maybe there's some buying interest in around this 250 level obviously that's a big round number as well 245 ended up being about the low so we pushed down again as again it was a sort of false break scenario and then we ended up with this kind of spinning top doji looking week followed through and that was the kind of break there according to me of this kind of downtrend type scenario you can see that kind of area did hold we pushed up quite high got a big sell off and then a sharp reversal higher again last week when we had the volatility surrounding the Fed but a good push higher off the 260 level and this box that I had here and now we're just the thing is it's still even though we sort of pushed above a couple of highs here this peak here only had one lower week it's not the most solid looking peak so really this is the kind of more interesting peak up here even though it only has one to the left over here obviously a lot to the right hand side and then the big ones right up here so we're still arguably in a bit of a kind of downtrend mode so definitely possibility and then selling the market and being this being the big kind of trough down and up and then a sell off from around here so then we've got this 61.8 has drawn from this high it's arguable which high you draw it from what I find sometimes useful is just the fact that this 50 level already worked quite well according to this peak which implies that might be the one that people are watching we're getting a bit of a sell off before this 61.8 at the moment now commodities have all been a bit on a run so if we look at silver now I've been tracking this all along this was the declining RSI trendline that was working quite well this was declining price trendline and this was all fairly textbook the one thing that caught me out initially was that we had these lows here and we had a marginal close below this 15.50 where was that close you look at the last price it was actually 51.50 these lows were slightly above 15.50 so then that didn't follow through got a few kind of inside days and then eventually that was the firstly that with the break below and then the close above kind of a small hammer pattern there then when we got the breakout through this high and above the rising trendline that was when we started to know we were in business obviously also corresponding with this candlestick sorry with the breakout candlestick is when we moved to the RSI so double confirmation trendline and the RSI trendline followed through the next day close above 16 and these lows over here and then we just got that massive move on Friday right up to that previous peak so there's not much in the way of support in this area and that's why I think probably I wouldn't be surprised if this is about as far down as we get there's not going to be too many people with a strong candle like that wanting to sell from there only so far as that I wouldn't be surprised if we push back on and maybe make it up to this this Feb 13 high up here close to 1750 WTI I was looking at earlier and actually the chart I think is most useful on this and it's actually a bit of a kind of early look at what we've been seeing in the likes of copper and things but here this is the weekly chart you can see and here is the low and here we've had this false break through the low and come back and close to above so kind of similar things that we saw that caused those massive moves higher in copper and silver so the market's still lower it's still a downtrend effectively in oil but we are facing a bit and there's a possibility that this gets a follow-through higher up to the data a bit better this area of former support got broken and now could become resistance they've got the two moving averages as a confluence of resistance there as well so we're going to get a push high to that and possibly a push high to the top of the range around 54 so on the daily chart there's a bit of nothing going on at the moment here in the daily chart but we've got to close below the previous lows if we do that line a bit better here close below then the bullish and golfing ish kind of candle and then just various sort of inside days but not much decision going on can't really tell too much from that only that the follow-through lower didn't really take much shape but we haven't seen much to the upside either so we do look at this weekly chart I think that tells us a bit more what that folks break through and then a close above so just briefly on all price at the end here it's really we've seen some comments from the Saudis today so that's a lot of a kind of thing that can push markets around on a day-to-day basis basically saying they're not going to cut production I think we can probably believe them that they were there, the Saudis were there to cut production but they don't want to do it by themselves and the thing is OPEC, even amongst all of them together are not swing producers anymore Russia is producing a lot of oil Venezuela is and obviously the US is so until it's all kind of agreed amongst various countries perhaps some of the South American countries and Russia and OPEC all agreeing to cut production together then I don't think it's I don't think the outlook for looks that good but we've obviously come down massively so at some point we're going to see some kind of side-raise markets until there's further evidence of really increasing production but that US inventories data on Wednesday is going to be pretty big as usual for W2IN and probably for Brent the rig count data on Friday is arguably not as important these days just because the number of rigs have been falling and eventually that will have an effect but at the moment US production has seen on the inventories data on Wednesday has been increasing in spite of the falling number of US oil rigs so that's about it for this week again just data-wise today we've got Dragby's speech as well as a speech from Stanley Fischer Vice President of the Fed so quite two big speeches happening on Monday tomorrow it's going to be about the inflation data in the UK and US Wednesday durable goods Thursday UK retail sales and easy jet earnings on Friday the US fourth quarter GDP final release so that has some big things to be watching and should be some opportunities especially following on from that volatility that we saw on Wednesday last week so good luck with the trading thanks for tuning in we'll see you next week


What's up everybody I'm evil rabbit we're here on a set of Corsa this car should look very familiar to a lot of you guys it's the s15 pro 2 car of Adam LZ so I did find the Adam LZ cars here in a set of Corsa as you can see his 13 which was already in there I found it a different version of it his r32 and of course his s15 pro 2 car so we're going to rip his pro 2 car today and what better place to test it than at his home track of OSW which I'm very familiar with OSW is a very fun track so we're going to rip OSW and probably go cruise this car in some back roads and stuff like that as well but we're going to be doing it in third person we're also going to be doing it on the Oculus Rift S but we're going to be rocking it from the outside view as well we do have the smoke mod on so we'll see if it bothers us if not we'll turn the smoke mod off a little bit if it gets a little bit too intense on the bank so Adam LZ's car make sure you guys follow me on Instagram Twitter all which found the description box below let's go rip a pro 2 car of a very well-known youtuber that a lot of you guys I know follow let's uh tell a little fun with it so we're going to do a quick change of tire pressures we're going to drop them down to 25 I believe and that's where we're going to test it so we're going to just send this car this car is insane sounding just high high rev bang definitely an insane sounding car looks pretty sweet sounds good oh boy oh we're going to the wall all right well whatever so we're going to see if we can't get some full pulls here at OSW and is s15 you have to heat our tires up a little bit in second gear you can already see the smoke billowing kind of staying so you guys know my love and hate of turbo cars so we have to stay in boost see if we can actually hang with Adam LZ's car so first run here at OSW let's uh let's go a little left foot brake all right here we go first run out not too not too shabby right now come off the bank a little bit wide on there and just throw a kick at the air staying for us kind of got into the crease oh my god the smoke's still there this is a new shader pack that I haven't had on before so we're gonna take a replay of that because I kind of want to see how long that smoke stays so definitely a fun car to drive having a lot of fun with the Adam LZ car and uh definitely getting more comfortable with turbo cars kind of flicked it in nice sounds good looks good got that uh tire curl going smoke billowing thrown it just disappearing and it's staying which is good because before the smoke didn't really stay too much now the smoke does look a lot better in the shader mod so we're gonna rip it again because that was a it's actually a clean run if I do say so myself for first run out with Adam LZ's car why is my cursor there oh no I don't want that all right first round with Adam LZ's car like I said we are gonna throw the Oculus Rift S on and do Oculus as well so we're gonna see how just in front of little creek see how we can do on another run see if we can't get up closer to that wall we're able to stay in boost so it's definitely better than I'm getting more used to turbo cars when we go in the Oculus it's gonna be weird though with being on the right side of the car but I'm ready for it we're gonna turn the headlights on a little bit here we go up closer to the wall little wall grays I came off the bank way too wrong on that the wall wall grays kind of kind of screwed me up on that one just bang out red line there though but the bank was getting there and getting up there because I don't want to get too greedy at first because I always say oh man I want to get so much closer to the bank or get closer to the wall and then I rip it you guys know that from previously watching the channel so we're gonna definitely try and get closer maybe run the wall but uh we're trying to be conservative you know animosity let me his car and don't want to wreck it bank better kind of right where we needed to be the piggy bank grab a little flick clutch kick clutch there kind of in the crease I'll take that run I will definitely take that run for sure let's take a look at that run here real quick uh final run set there we go oh did I slow it down whoops I don't want slow mode I want normal mode all right whoops all right here we go it's kind of cool that the driver suit is actually animals these suit in the car if you guys didn't notice that and his helmet so like I said I can't take credit for these mods I will leave the link in the description on where you can get the mods it is from another country but I was able to get these car mods in no problem at all right in the crease that's a very nice run it's a very nice fluid run I find don't say so myself so before we go any further we're gonna switch to the Oculus Rift S and we're going to see what we can do in the Oculus in his car at OSWU and hopefully uh right hand drive doesn't mess with me too too much so let's switch over the Oculus and head back onto the track but in the Oculus and uh see I'm missing a handbrake lever hmm I think the mod might be a little bit incomplete but it does give us a basic idea of his car and it does sound pretty sick so OSWU one of my favorite tracks to drive on here right now because you have the bank and you have all the cool fun stuff and you know being on the Oculus it's a lot of fun being in the car but like I said being right hand drive may mess with me I've built a lot of left hand drive cars but I hope the audio is a lot better for you guys did get out there get the mod mic on there so that the audio is better all right OSWU Oculus animals these cars let's go for gear kick it in hey too much angle which threw us way down on the bank so definitely need to get my bearing set in the Oculus all right that latter part of that track was much better so definitely a big change from driving in the outer perspective view to being in the Oculus been doing a lot more Oculus rift driving and getting way more comfortable in it but getting a little thrown off by the right hand drive now a lot of people probably be like oh it's not that big of a difference it is actually a little bit of a difference when you're used to being on the left side of the car and you come onto a right hand drive car and it's it's definitely weird these reflective doors man they're almost like clear doors I can kind of see oh man I can see through the back well so this model looks great from the outside the inside need some work I may work on this car myself let's do another run here turns to throw as much angle there we go not as much angle still low on the bank though did come off the bank weird it's kind of looking in the wrong spot I've noticed that I throw a lot more angle on the rift than I do when I am just driving normally in a different view whether it be third person or on the roof cam so like I said I will leave the link for these packs down below you guys can give the cars a try yourself definitely enjoying the sounds of this car for sure animals these pro 2 car definitely a very nasty car built by enjuku so see if we can't get a good run here a lot less angle here we go oh that's much better and so we came off the bank weird we're just definitely zeroed our run there but we were I feel like we were much higher on the bank so I kind of want to watch that but replays in the Oculus are pretty weird so let's see oh yeah because we're all the way up here I cannot see a timeline or anything so it definitely feels very weird up here all right this is a very weird view but we can kind of see where we're going we're kind of on the roof animal these car well it's kind of cool that we can see all the smoke back there and the caliper going through the front wheel so we definitely need to change up some stuff in this mod for personal use but I think we're gonna stay in this camera view for a minute kind of kind of liking this view up here you get to see a bit of a different perspective in the car so let's see where we were up here initiated in much higher on the bank nowhere near the wall though I felt like it was close oh yeah we got close to the wall there that's where we cut through flume of smoke definitely a very different perspective when you're watching who plays an Oculus kind of make me a little nauseous so we're gonna we're gonna exit that so we are back on the snowball without the Oculus on and I feel like we should try another place but where where do I want to go we can go to black county or black cat country a big open map we're on the short do a little cruise we're going to run it in third person mode do a little cruise in the car and uh well enjoy some scenery well probably go on sideways so like I said make sure you guys follow me and subscribe to the channel and hit that bell notification so you'll be part of the notification gang it's like everybody who does and I do appreciate all the support we're gonna drop our tires hit drive change up the view all right let's uh let's just cruise this for a few we're already at 70 miles an hour in force this car is insane this car is crazy fast and uh crazy fun to drive if the model was a little bit cleaner on the inside I'd be happy so we may have to change it ourselves oh boy oh ow that's a big hit ripping up hill in fifth gear just destroying our tires still going still going oh my goodness I should have clutch kicking that sooner so I hope you guys enjoyed this episode here on a set of Corsa with Adam LZ's pro 2 s15 a little bit of third person a little bit of a more smoke a little oculus action as well and as always I like thank you guys for coming back and watching and I do appreciate all the support and all the new subscribers if you aren't subscribed make sure you tap that subscribe button I would appreciate support as we just understood into the walk and wrecked Adam LZ's pretty car so until next time guys I'm gonna grab it I'll see you guys on the track


My name is Ben Santa. I'm a climate scientist. I study the nature and causes of climate change at Lawrence Livermore National Lab in Livermore, California. Human fingerprints, what are we seeing? Back in the mid-90s, when the first fingerprinting studies were being performed, one of the criticisms of that early work was you folks are only looking at surface temperature. You're only doing this fingerprinting with changes in land and ocean surface temperature.  Look in ice, look in the ocean, look in ocean heat content, look in rainfall patterns, the amount of moisture in the atmosphere, the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature change, extreme events. And that's what's happened in the last 20 years now. Scientists have interrogated many, many different aspects of the climate system, not just looking at one number, the average temperature or average moisture or average pressure, but looking at complex patterns of change in hard observations, the latest, greatest satellite observations, the latest, greatest climate model simulations. And the red thread running through all of this fingerprinting work is natural causation alone doesn't cut it. It doesn't explain the changes in all of these things that we've actually observed. My focus has been in the last 10 years or so on two things. One is the vertical structure of temperature changes in the atmosphere. So if you look from the surface of the Earth right up into the stratosphere, 20 miles above the surface of the Earth, what we've actually observed in weather balloon measurements and satellite measurements is this complex pattern of warming low down and cooling up high. So the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, has shown warming pretty much across all latitude bands, and the upper atmosphere has shown cooling over the last 30 to 40 years or so. And it turns out that that pattern of warming low down and cooling up high is really distinctive. We know of no natural mechanisms that can generate something like that, sustain for three or four decades. Volcanoes can't do it, the sun can't do it, internal climate variability can't do it, nor can some combination of natural causes, volcanoes, the sun, and internal variability generate that complex pattern of warming low down and cooling of the upper atmosphere. The only thing that we know of that can generate that distinctive fingerprint is human-caused increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases and human-caused depletion in the upper atmosphere of stratospheric ozone. And it's been fascinating over my career to look at ever better satellite observations and ever better model simulations and see that fingerprint pattern of human effects literally emerging from the noise. The best information we have now from our most recent research is that the chances of getting a fingerprint match between that human fingerprint pattern of warming low down and cooling up high and purely natural causes is infinitesimally small. The signal-to-noise ratio is greater than 10. That's what our research tells us. So there's just no way of explaining what we've actually observed without invoking a strong human effect on climate. The other thing we've looked at is water vapor. We've looked at satellite-based estimates of the moistening of the atmosphere. And that moistening is kind of interesting because it's consistent with very basic physics and with very basic theory. We know from something called the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship that for roughly every one degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere you expect about a 7% increase in the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. And that's exactly what we see in models and in observations. And again, it's the pattern matches that are so intriguing there. We see the largest increases in water vapor over the warmest areas of the tropical oceans in both models and in observations. And the bottom line from both the temperature work and the moisture work is what we're seeing is simply not natural. We have not looked at the daily cycle. One of the things we are looking at that I'm really excited about is looking at the annual cycle. Most fingerprint detection work has actually focused on annual averages or decadal averages. People try and beat down the noise of natural climate variability by averaging in space and in time. And that means that one really neglected aspect of change, of human cause change, is the seasonal cycle. So what we're now exploring is whether one can use these formal fingerprinting techniques that we've successfully applied to things like water vapor and temperature to the seasonal cycle. And the answer seems to be yes. We know why that should be. We know in the case, say, of ozone depletion, that has a really clear signature in terms of the seasonal cycle. Other things like biomass burning or changes in sea ice. Again, there's some clear expectation that these things should affect the seasonal cycle, both the size of the seasonal cycle, the timing of the seasonal cycle. And to first order, that's what we're seeing. Some identifiable human fingerprint in the March of the Seasons, which is scientifically rather, how should I say it, scientifically gratifying, but as a human being and as a citizen of this planet, it's kind of disturbing to think that we're now at a point where humans have a detectable signature on the seasons themselves. Perhaps not unexpected again, given what we know about the effects of different factors like human cause changes in greenhouse gases, ozone, biomass burning, and the effects they should have on the seasonal cycle. But still, it's kind of staggering that we might be at a point where we can actually identify these things. And we know that people care about that stuff because that really has implications for plants and animals for phenology, for the timing of events in the natural world. So detection of human effects on the seasonal cycle is not purely of academic interest to a couple of folks at AGU. The 17-year statement, where does it come from, and what do we know about human effects on climate on different time scales? Let me back up a minute. A few years ago, I testified in front of Congress and one of the witnesses in those hearings claimed global warming stopped in 1998, a claim that one has heard a lot in the last few years. And this witness claim that roughly 10 to 15-year periods with little or no warming of the Earth's surface or the lower atmosphere were evidence of absence of human effects on climate. And the witness also claimed that no computer model simulations when run with human-caused changes in greenhouse gases could produce such hiatus or pause periods, again, 10 to 15-year periods with little or no warming. The witness engaged in what I like to call science by eminence of position. Eminence of... eminent physicist, member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, but provided no evidence to document or support those claims that were made to Congress. So we decided to do the science to look at those claims and see whether they were correct or not. Well, they weren't. As we and others have shown, computer models even run with historical estimates of human-caused changes in greenhouse gases can, just like in the real world, produce short periods with little or no warming. That's noise. Noise in the system. Our expectation never was, as climate scientists, that each year would be inexorably warmer than the previous year in response to human-caused changes in greenhouse gases. You expect to see some warming signal, but that warming signal is embedded in the rich year-to-year and decade-to-decade noise of phenomenon like El Niños, La Niñas, Pacific Decadal Oscillation. That noise isn't going to go away just because humans are, through burning fossil fuels, changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. So what we did back then is we looked at all of the world's computer model simulations pretty much then available to us. We showed, first of all, that even models run with historical greenhouse gas increases could, by chance, produce 10 to 15-year periods with little or no warming. We also looked at so-called control runs. Those are simulations with no human-caused changes in greenhouse gases or particulate pollution, no changes in the sun or volcanoes, just rich internal climate variability of these models. Again, things like El Niños, La Niñas, other oscillations of the climate system. And what you could do was then look at those model simulations of a world without us, but with this natural climate variability, you could ask this question, how long would an observed warming trend have to be in order to rise above the model estimates of noise of internal climate variability? And it turned out that the answer was 17 years. We were very, very careful to say we're interrogating these model control simulations and we were not making any kind of prediction at all. That's important. Some critics out there, such as Mr. Anthony Watts of the What's Up With That blog, have maintained that our 2011 paper, where we published this analysis of models and observations, made a specific prediction about the next 17 years. That's a complete misrepresentation of what we actually did. Again, what we were doing was looking at signal-to-noise, saying how long would an observed record have to be relative to model control runs before that observed record was unusual. But of course, in the real world over the last 17 years, we've had many things going on simultaneously, not just internal climate variability. As we and others have shown, there's been volcanic cooling. There's been an uptick in volcanic activity since the beginning of the 21st century. That's not natural climate variability. That, in fact, is an external factor. There's been an unusually long and low solar minimum during the last solar cycle. Again, not pure internal climate variability. Folks like Mr. Watts, who have maintained that all that is going on in the real world is natural climate variability, so the Santorid Al paper is incorrect, are really fundamentally misrepresenting the complex climate system, where multiple things, the sun, volcanoes, internal variability, human influence, are happening simultaneously. Perhaps he can convince some of his followers of the correctness of his interpretation of our results, but he's wrong, and if he really feels so adamantly that the entire scientific community published incorrect science, then it's incumbent on him to set the record straight to publish stuff in the peer-reviewed literature. But sadly, he has not done that. Instead, his focus has been on trying to cast doubt on the motives and reputations of individual scientists rather than to try and truly shed light on complex scientific issues, ashamed of what actually drives scientists. I hear this a lot. Perhaps this kind of criticism was best phrased by Pat Michaels, who famously said, climate scientists are like lab rats waiting for their next cocaine fix, the idea being that we're all just in it for the money or to alter world systems of government to get rich somehow, baloney. I have absolutely no time for people like that who make those kind of claims. It's been my privilege over my career to know men and women who are motivated by desire to understand. That's why they do it. That's why they get up in the morning to try and understand the complex climate system, the factors that influence it, to maybe for one or two moments in their scientific career have a tiny piece of the puzzle that nobody else in the planet has. That's why you do it, for that joy of understanding, for nothing else. So, in my opinion, it's pure projection behavior. The folks who make those kind of allegations are doing quite well for themselves, and they're doing well not because they've made fundamental scientific advances, they're doing well by portraying themselves as the lone wolf howling against the establishment, but they're not creating understanding. I was the convening lead author for the Detection and Attribution chapter of the IPCC's second assessment report back in 1995, and it was unpaid work. It was in addition to my normal responsibilities as a scientist funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, I thought that it was worthwhile to do. Clear assessment of the science, clear explanation to the public and policymakers and other scientists of what we do, that seemed to me to be an important and worthwhile thing, which is why I signed on. I had no idea what I was signing up for. In the end, I do think that the IPCC is still the best mechanism we have for explaining complex scientific issues to both our peers and to the general public and to policymakers, but it is tremendously difficult. You're in a quest for the holy grail of total objectivity. Think about that for a minute. How difficult it is to put aside all those subjective filters through which you see the world, your familiarity with these research methods, or what scientists say, or B, and you don't like scientists C and D. You're asked to put all that aside, and for a couple of years, work on the best possible portrayal of our current state of understanding. Really, really tough, no matter how objective you are. But you have dozens, hundreds of scientists around the world looking over your shoulder, providing input, criticizing you. It's this fierce marketplace of ideas.  That's not the way science works. Not in the IPCC, not at AGU. Again, it's fighting for those, that supremacy of ideas, of theories, of understanding. So really hard, really draining. Very glad I did it in the end. In my opinion, what the IPCC comes out with at the end of this lengthy process is lowest common denominator stuff. And a good example of that is what they've concluded with regard to sea level rise in the fourth assessment report in 2007 and the fifth assessment report in 2013. They, IPCC scientists, found that one of the things we don't understand particularly well at the moment is the contribution to sea level rise from ice sheets on the move, from the dynamics of melting ice sheets. And what they felt they could assess and assess well was the thermal expansion component. So how much sea level rises because of the expansion of warming ocean water. So basically, they punted on the ice sheet contribution and said this could be pretty large, but we don't have the science to reliably assess that at the moment. So what we're going to do is stick to the things that we know well. That is the antithesis of the IPCC as alarmist, scare-mongering organization. That's not the way this organization works. Again, to pass muster to get science through this lengthy multi-year complex review process, you have to have stuff in there that is well-known, that is well understood, that is not speculative. So there are many, many examples like that where rather than going for the big headline, the IPCC instead decided for the things that are really well-known that are not controversial in our field. Well, after the 1995 report came out, I had no idea how my life was going to change. I remember sitting in a bar in Madrid with Steven Schneider, the late Steven Schneider, immediately after the final sentence had been agreed on in the 1995 report, a sentence that's forever engraved on my memory. The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate. And here we are at this bar, and Steve says to me, this changes everything. Your life is going to be changed forever. And I had no idea what he was talking about. I really didn't, quite honestly.  But he was right. That single sentence had huge ripple effects, not only in the United States, but also in the world. It was the first time the scientific community really got together and said, that's it, it's a complex problem, but we've seen the evidence and it all points in one direction. And we no longer can claim that we're purely innocent bystanders in the climate system. As of 1995, November 1995, Madrid, we had some recognition that we were actively participating in the climate system. So my life changed. Lots of people didn't like that balance of evidence statement and no personal animus, but I was the carrier of that message. So you take down the message by taking down the messenger. I understand that now in retrospect and it was a difficult time because I thought it was at the finish line. I thought it was over and in a sense, it was only beginning. But some things are worth fighting for and that perhaps was the most profound lesson for me back then, that a clear public understanding of the science, doing the kind of thing that you're doing here, that was truly worth fighting for. And I recognized that my responsibilities were not just to do the science, but also to try and tell people, hopefully in plain English, what we did, what we learned, and why it mattered to them. So that was transformational for me to recognize too, what an extraordinary privilege it is to be able to go to work every day and learn something about this amazing world in which we live. And to me, that's the fundamental difference between the folks here at AGU who are trying to advance understanding and the destroyers. People who are not capable of building new understanding, not capable of creating, all they want to do is obstruct, delay, and destroy. They have no real interest in better understanding what's going on in our world. And that's the fundamental distinction to me. You know, on the one hand, people who really do love understanding, and on the other hand, people who really couldn't care less about understanding, they only want to win. Well, one of the tactics was to piggyback off geopolitical events. So that was the time of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, for example. And the Global Climate Coalition, this consortium of energy interests, produced a document entitled the IPCC Institutionalized Scientific Cleansing. So they argued that we, the scientists involved in Chapter 8 of the Second Assessment Report, the Detection and Attribution Chapter, were guilty of scientific cleansing, of purging our chapter of all uncertainty. It was a lie. That was the astonishing thing to me, that these things were demonstrably untrue. 20% of our chapter was specifically devoted to discussion of uncertainties in observations and climate models, in the statistical techniques used to compare models and observations. So that was really difficult, I think, to get to grips with, to wrap my arms around lying. Lying is a calculated strategy. And getting away with it, too. Being able to make the most outrageous claims. Another claim back then was, and this was from Fred Singer, that changes to the IPCC report had been made by shadowy political operatives for political purposes. They were not under the control of scientists. They had not been approved by the IPCC. All of that stuff was made up. And yet, there were a lot of people who wanted to believe those kind of messages, who wanted to believe, even back then, in shadowy conspiracies on the part of evil scientists to somehow manipulate the world governments and world opinion. That was hard, this sense that no matter how hard you tried, some people were not going to be accessible to rational debate. They were lost. You could never reach them, no matter how compelling your scientific arguments were. Then there were the politicians who got involved, who decided to investigate my funding, why the Department of Energy had allowed me to work on IPCC-related matters. And I guess that was a harbinger, the shape of things to come for the next few decades.  Make life miserable for them. Let other people see what's happening. They're probably being employed more extensively and more successfully, too. I think an additional weapon in the arsenal is Freedom of Information Act requests, which are being used not really to advance understanding or, again, shed light on complex scientific issues, but as a tactic to threaten, to intimidate, to throw a spanner in the works to take up your time. Then there's the power of the Internet, which really was not available back in 1995, to harness your supporters to go after individual scientists, send them threatening emails, or worse, and let them know we're watching you and we don't like you, we don't like what you do. That's new. That's a new trick in the arsenal. Hacking emails, releasing them, all of these things. The technology has moved on since 1995, and it's the same playbook. Don't really focus on the science and advancing understanding, contributing, but tear down, destroy. Well, the letter was a letter of support. It was an open letter to Ben Santor, I think was the title of the thing. It was published in the bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. I had no knowledge that this letter was being written, and it was by Rick Antheys, the president of UCAR, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Susan Navery, and two other signatories. I don't remember their names at the moment, but it was very, very gratifying. I think in the middle of all of that stuff that was going on in the summer of 1996, the scientific cleansing charges, the charges that Chapter 8 had been tampered with for political purposes, the charges of irregularities in my own personal research, those were very, very serious allegations. And here, people who I hadn't met, who didn't know me, were coming to my defense and writing this letter and saying, hey, this is not the way to have a debate about climate science, the implications of climate science by going after individuals. And that was the silver lining for me, that many people who had no knowledge of me or what had happened in Madrid were willing to say, hey, this is not the way to have a responsible discussion. Don't try and demonize individual scientists here. That felt really good, as did the New York Times piece by Bill Stevens, also in the summer of 1996, when that came out and gave some real in-depth discussion of what had actually happened. Up to that point, you know, all the attacks were out pretty quickly, but really no space, not much space, was given to the responses to the kind of criticisms that I just mentioned, the scientific cleansing, political tampering, irregularities in research. And I guess that's a strategy too. You overwhelm the press with lots of allegations and they receive front-page coverage, but the detailed, thoughtful responses to those allegations, those are not news, really. The IPCC did respond, I believe. You know, in the end, Bert Boleyn, the chairman of the IPCC and the co-chairs of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton and Louis Guilvan-Mirafilio did respond to the Wall Street Journal, addressed these charges and said, hey, these are wrong. These are just incorrect, you know. We were there. Chapter eight was discussed at this Madrid plenary meeting of the IPCC. There was a clear understanding that the language of the chapter needed to reflect the discussions of the governments present at Madrid, of the scientists present at Madrid. So Ben Center did not behave improperly. That was obviously gratifying. And slowly, but surely, I think the story did come out just like with Climategate. It took a while for the true story of those emails to be told. And that's frustrating when you're right in the middle of all of these things, when you see stuff that is written about you that maybe millions of people are going to read that you know is untrue. And you've got to kind of grin and bear it. But again, worth doing in the end, I'm very glad that I had the enormous privilege of serving as convening lead author back in 1995. If asked, you know, if I could do that simulation and go back, I would do it again. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we've changed the levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It's not a belief system. It's not my opinion. That's fact. We've monitored levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases for over half a century now at dozens of locations around the world. Those measurements tell a really clear story. Levels of atmospheric CO2 have increased about 40%. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat that would otherwise escape out into space. And by looking at lighter and heavier isotopes of carbon, we know that most of that increase in carbon dioxide is us, is burning of fossil fuels. No doubt, no ambiguity. The real pedal to the metal question has always been how much climate change comes from that human-caused change in levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. And that's where all the fingerprinting comes in, that not just our group, but dozens of groups around the world have done. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we've looked everywhere, not just at surface temperature, but in the oceans, in the upper atmosphere, in water, in continental runoff from major rivers, in ice. And no matter where you look, nature alone can't explain the changes that we've seen. The best explanation of all of these independently measured things in the real world is a strong human influence. I wish it were otherwise. I truly do. I have a son. He's going to be living to see 2100. He'll know. And my real concern is that he doesn't look back one day and say, hey, my dad knew this stuff. He knew what was going on. Why didn't he try a little bit harder? He had knowledge. He had understanding of what was actually going to happen. And I don't want to have him retrospectively looking back and thinking my dad could have done more, but didn't. It's been a real privilege to watch him grow up. In addition to the scientific imperative to understand this problem, I really do believe there's a moral and ethical imperative too. Like me, my son's a climber. I've taken him climbing since he was a little kid. And the idea that some of the places, some of the glaciers I stood on, some of the ice fields that I've now visited in Alaska, he will experience them fundamentally different from the way that I experienced them. That's not just a scientific issue. That's a moral and ethical issue as well.


Let us have another practical question and this is again about consolidated statement of financial position. We have done earlier income statement question small one and similarly I am going to do here questions on the balance sheets. So let us have here. We got paid up capital of X and Y. Again X has 80% share in Y and in that the consideration pay is 300,000. Reserves are profits and this is one important thing that you have reserves that are on 1st January, I am talking about holding and Y. This is your pre-acquisition. The profit that is coming after January is mentioned separately. This can be in some time question that you should tell the total and tell the pre-acquisition and this can also be that the current year profit if you buy this share on 1st July then the whole year profit would be 50% free. So this pre-calculation is very important because you do not have to take it in profit but you have to use it in good will. There are trade collectors, there is taxation and there is proposed dividend in this. Normally we do not show proposed dividend as such in the balance sheet. If we pay then the change in equity statement is taken. This is what standard says nowadays. But if you are paying quarterly dividend and it is approved and if you have to make accounts then when you have approved in quarter then you will have to bring it. You will have to add an adjusting entity. You will have to show the payable. In this case, it has happened that they have added the figure of proposed dividend in the balance sheet. Now to understand the details of the proposed dividend, if it comes in the balance sheet then what to do? Note two or three things about the dividend. One is that they have paid. If they have paid, then there is no need for adjustment as such. Because you have received it, you have come in profit, the matter is over. But if the pay is of some portion of the proposed pre-acquisition then you will have to add adjustment. Because you have got the profit but it is not yours. So then you will have to add it in adjustment in good will's calculations. This is number one. It has been paid. But if it is also proposed and it is seen in the balance sheet and you have bought the share then you will show your receivable and the payable. In that case, you will have to reverse the payable. So when you reverse it, note that you can reverse your share. That is 80% reverse. The 20% and minority of your non-controlling interest holders can't reverse it. You can't add it in non-controlling interest. In fact, you will show it separately as a current liability which will save 2 rupees. That is 10, then 8 will be reversed but 2 will remain. After that, deprecision, building and plant management. In the last question, we had written net of assets value. Now what is in it? It has written on the other side the figure of deprecision provision. If it was separate, it should have been minused from there. But it has raised the new question. So in that, when we will make the balance sheet, these figures should be minused from there. Because you have to take net and go. And current accounts. This is also a question. What is a current account? Now look at the current account. It also means that a company makes a lane between each other. So they open their current account. This is not a bank account. No, this current account is with an individual company. That is, the folding and substituting x and y are running a current account. You have to reconcile this too. If there is a current account here, then look, your current account will also come on the other side. This is the current account. Now there is a problem here. There are 14, then there are 19. This cannot be cancelled unless and unless you do not adjust it. That is the problem. If there are current account or balances, if they are not reconciled, then you can not cancel it out. It is necessary to cancel that you will reconcil them first. So its reconciliation will come in the note. Now look at this. Remittance of 2000 from y to x in December 2019 was not received by x-limited. Now look, you have sent the remittance money. You did not get it. So that is why you have taken the money out of your hand. So for consolidation, you will have to put its entry. You will have to debit the cash-in transit. And the party you have sent, you have to credit it. So this difference, the difference of 19 and 14, the difference of 2 has come. Here goods with the invest of 3000 was sent by x-limited in December, but not received by y-limited until January. Again look, you did not get the goods you sent. So when you sent it, you have debit it, you have recorded your sales. Now look at the difference of 3000. 14 and 2, 16 and 3, 19. So this will be reconciled. So you will end up with 19, 14 will also end up there. But this 2000 and 3000, this 2000 will be added in your stock. Sorry, 3000 will be added in stock and 2000 will be added in your cash. So this is how these two adjustments are. It is important that if there is cash-in transit, or goods-in-transit and you are not getting the balance of the current accounts, then you will have to reconcile if you are not agreeing. Only then you can cancel. Then look, the profit elements on this is also 400, calculated and told. He did not tell you how much profit there is or how. He himself told you. Included in the stock of y-limited, December 31, 2019, were goods purchased from X-limited for 10,000, which included a profit of 2000. Now he himself told you that this is included in the profit. No entire dividend paid. It will be clear later. Goodwill to be written off against reserve. Look, he told you in this. Goodwill to be written off against reserve. He is not telling you the figure. So when we want to calculate and our figure will come, we will take it and adjust it in the profit. We will write it off. So this is how basically this question is. Goodwill is to be written off against reserve. Resurrect profit and loss. We can retain anything. Now we need to prepare again a financial position and let's see how the figures look like. Thank you very much.


I stand here now as a representative of the Faculty of Law but I think I need to establish my credentials as an EU lawyer. As a private international lawyer of course inevitably and inescapably most of my subject is now at least for the time being regulated by EU law. I should however come clean as many of you will know those who ply my trade are habitually severely critical of those EU regulations and of the decisions of the Court of Justice. I would like to put on record however that none of my colleagues who I speak to would actually wish those regulations to disappear however critical we might be of them. I wanted to do two things in my concluding remarks. First of all I wanted to offer some thanks. Thanks on behalf of the faculty. I wanted to thank Albertina for her hard work on this and I also wanted to thank Felicity for her hard work on this. I wanted to thank all of our speakers and moderators in the course of today but I also wanted to thank everyone who has given up their day to be at this wonderful and interesting event. The second thing that I wanted to do was to put the evolution of cells in a wider context, a context which serves to highlight its importance in the history of this faculty and I hope that will lead inevitably to me expressing optimism about the future of cells and its work. It's clear I think the foundation of cells 25 years ago came at a defining moment in the history of this faculty and it must be seen in the context of parallel trends. It coincided not exactly but approximately with other important changes in the faculty. First of all and I'm inclined to put this top of the list myself, the move to this wonderful building which has transformed our lives and our view of ourselves. Secondly round about the same time as the foundation of cells or at least round about the same time that it got into its stride a decision was made in this faculty to expand dramatically our LLM programme in terms of student numbers and also the courses on offer. I'm also bound to say of course that the foundation or the early years of cells coincided with the in retrospect rather obvious decision at the time it seemed more radical to appoint a dedicated specialist professor of European law. It was the move to this building that gave cells although it existed before its home and as it were turbocharged its activities as a result. It was the growth in the LLM with its raft of courses and its eager new students many of whom came from other EU states and the appointment of a specialist professor which with the advent of cells kick started this faculty's rise to prominence in the area of EU law. It's now hard to imagine that at the time of its foundation cells was the only centre in the faculty of law so central no pun intended was cells to the faculty in its early days and indeed to this building that at one time the lettering on the glass by the door indicated that this building housed three institutions the faculty of law the squire law library and the centre for European legal studies all these historic developments not least the founding of cells came at a time of real transition in the evolution of this faculty this was truly a transformative moment of watershed for those of us who were young academics at the time all these things together created a brave new world our view of where we were and what we were doing simply transformed up until that point the faculty had of course seen itself as a great national law school a national institution that focused primarily not exclusively but primarily on English law our competitors not that we would at that time ever have seen things in such Darwinian terms our competitors were in the UK indeed they were in England our curriculum like our old buildings was venerable but a little faded the mood board in the faculty was I think shabby chic yes we taught and published in international law comparative law even EC law as it was but these activities were regarded as speciality interests not central to what we did how much has changed now our worldview is different we see ourselves as one of the world's great law schools we see ourselves in a global context we judge ourselves against the best in the world we compete internationally for students especially postgraduate students central to this vision however is our role as a European law school and I adopt here the broad sense in which Kenneth uses that expression a European law school in the European tradition the outward invisible sign of that of course is cells it's worth by way of a footnote just considering some facts and figures to put this into perspective around 20% of the academic staff of this faculty are from EU states other than the UK as were just shy of 50% of our LLM students last year a single optional course in as it was EC law has given way to the extraordinary buffet of courses that we now offer which are entirely or partly devoted to EU law including I should add my own this is not of course because of cells or entirely because of cells but cells has I think set the tone and has in turn drawn oxygen from our change in culture as this suggests cells has always been central to this faculty since its inception central to its work and to how we see ourselves clearly the last 20 years have seen cells develop into one of the premier centres for the study of EU law in the world in doing so if I might as chair of the faculty shamelessly steal the limelight it has made this faculty one of the one of the premier centres for the study of EU law in the world it would be foolish especially in the light of Catherine's moving remarks to deny that there are challenges ahead I suppose I'm paid to be an optimist although I think I am by nature but I must say to me a challenge is just an opportunity by another name I'm confident that cells and all those associated with EU law in this faculty have a distinctive role and an important voice especially in the near future indeed for all the travails associated with brexit there is a real opportunity for cells to continue to shape the debate there is also I should say an opportunity for this faculty to be a leader in teaching and research in this new landscape certainly from an institutional point of view our commitment is to be on the front foot and to take the lead in this certainly I can assure you that in uncertain times the Cambridge law faculty is dedicated to maintaining its position its position as an international centre of excellence in teaching and research as a preeminent centre for work in EU law and as a great European law school rooted in the culture and the values of the wider European legal tradition so I think it is entirely appropriate for me not merely to congratulate cells on its 25th birthday but with confidence to wish it well for a long and distinguished future


It's important to realize that sometimes whole cultures make tragic choices, you know, just as individuals do in their lives. And we kind of made a tragic choice in America to pursue this suburban project the way we did it. You know, we decided that we were going to become a drive-in society at a certain point, you know, really after the Second World War was over. And we pursued it just with the most maniacal intensity, and it got out of hand. The built environment really is the human habitat, and it used to come really in two basic divisions, the urban and the rural. This all changed with the suburbs, and what we got was this new mishmash of things that were not really rural and not really urban. In some respects they had all of the drawbacks of each, and few of the advantages. Suburbia had all the congestion of the city without having any of the real connection between things. Historically you can understand why we did it, why we made the choice. The American city was never really a very nice place after a certain point. You know, they mostly were organisms that rose up with the industrial process. And they were expressions of industrialism, and they attained a scale and a kind of programming that made them pretty unpleasant places to live after a certain point. Cities as large as New York around the year 1900 had never been seen before in history, except maybe London contemporaneously. And the noise, the smoke of industry, the smells, just the unpleasantness of it all. The enormous tenement neighborhoods where the factory workers had to live. The scale of this had never been seen. New York City had a density that exceeded Calcutta today around the turn of the century in New York. At the turn of the century there was a movement called the City Beautiful Movement. And the idea was that we had become a great new powerful nation in the theater of nations, and that we had to have cities now that were worthy of our new status in the world. So a great effort was made among the architects and the municipal officials. There was a real consensus that was established at the highest levels and most broad levels of American culture that we had to make our cities better. So at that point you got the great urban places that we still revere. The great civic centers of San Francisco and Cleveland, the New York Public Library, the Metropolitan Museum of Art. These wonderful civic places and the great monumental buildings that went with them. But after the First World War the City Beautiful Movement really ends. And it was really remarkably brief. And you get this new project of now devoting all of this investment and effort into suburban development and to retrofitting the city for automobiles. And the boom of the 1920s was largely about that. And of course it all came to grief in the stock market crash of 1929. And the construction industry was among the hardest hit industries in America during the Great Depression. And that went on basically through most of the 1930s. And by then we're segueing into World War II already. So after World War II, you know, we're kind of exhausted from all this. Moreover, our cities have not been cared for very well for the last 15, 20 years really since the stock market crash. You know, they've been neglected. There hasn't been a whole lot of investment because there wasn't much money around. And you get to the late, you get to the early 1950s and there's one image of city life for most of America. And that's Ralph Cramden's apartment in the Honeymooners. You know, this dreary cell-like tenement apartment with a view of the air shaft. And the American war veterans come back from World War II and they, you know, they don't want to live in Ralph Cramden's apartment. You know, they want space and air and light. And, you know, there are other things going on. We are right now in 1945, let's say, you know, when the war is over, we're the last man standing in the industrial world. We seem to have all the oil that we could ever possibly use and more. And so we could make anything we wanted and sell it to anybody else in the world and now lend them the money to buy it from us. And this is what goes on through the 1950s and 60s. And, you know, this is accompanied by a resumption of the suburban project that sort of stopped dead in the water in 1929. And we resume the suburban project with a vengeance.  It continues up through the whole end of the 20th century, probably accelerates even, you know, more madly in the 1990s and early 21st century and culminates in this fiasco of the housing bubble and the banking fiasco that went with it. And now, you know, we're beginning to live in the aftermath of that and everything has changed. Only the American public doesn't really know it yet. One of the consequences of it is that a huge amount of capital has left the system in the form of debt that will never be repaid or will be welshed on in one way or another, or defaulted. And that money was the money we hoped we would rebuild, you know, the new post-industrial, post-oil economy with. And that money's not going to be there. Nor is that money going to be there for continued suburban expansion or for building any of the accessories and furnishings of suburbia that we're familiar with, like the strip malls, the power centers as they're called, where the big box stores live. You know, we're done with that. We're done. The project is over and we don't get it yet.  And they're waiting in vain. They're done. The production home builders are going down and they're not coming back. You know, we've got just an immense inventory of unsold houses, much of it in places where it shouldn't have been built in the first place, where it's going to be hemorrhaging value both in terms of just its sheer monetary value and its usefulness. Suburbia probably has several destinies. Part of it will be slums. Part of it will be salvage because we're going to, you know, a lot of the material that went into building it has value and it took a lot of energy to make the cinder blocks in the strip malls and to make the aluminum trusses in the big box store and the steel that went in all that stuff. You know, we're going to retrieve a lot of that stuff. We'll disassemble some of it. Some of these places won't be. Some of these places will be just ruins. Some of them will be salvage, but some of them will be ruins and some of them will be slums. And some of them may be just scraped off, you know, at some point. That's maybe the least likely outcome because it will take more money to scrape them off than it will to systematically disassemble them and you can do that by hand, you know. But the relationship of this, what will be a return to real urban habitats that will be smaller, more compact, dense, probably lower, you know, they won't be 50 stories high, they'll be 10 stories or 7 stories or less. You know, that's really our future if we're lucky. You know, if we can get through this bottleneck of problems and continue to remain civilized. These trends and converging problems which I've bundled into this idea of the long emergency are really going to mandate a new way of behaving and it's going to involve a reconnection with history, a way of designing and assembling traditional habitats, towns, villages, walkable neighborhoods, walkable cities, cities that are scaled more intelligently to the energy realities of the future and the economic realities of the future. And these are going to have to exist, by the way, in a meaningful relationship with productive agriculture because another one of the forces that is going to be bearing down on us is going to be the failure of industrial agriculture of essentially turning oil into corn and, you know, and turning oil into food. We're done doing that. We don't know it yet, but it's going to change everything. And by the way, these are the ideas that have been promoted pretty much by the new urbanists, a group that I've been associated with for about 15 years. And, you know, the new urbanists were known for the projects like Seaside, Florida, and Kentlands in Washington, the new towns, the traditional neighborhood developments. They were in a way, they were really kind of a transitional form and they were done really in conjunction with the production home builders. And they're not the great achievement of the new urbanists. Their achievement, and what they'll be remembered for, is for diving into the dumpster of history and retrieving all that information and principle and all those skill sets and methodologies that are needed to design and assemble a meaningful human habitat that has a future and that is worth caring about. And, you know, those of us who have been involved with this understand that the new urbanism is not really new. It's just urbanism that was forgotten. And what they've done now is provide, once again, continuity between what we've done historically and emulating the success of 5,000 years of urban tradition and putting it back into really into everyday use. They've been in an ongoing fierce battle with the suburban developers and the municipal officials and the existing codes and zoning ordinances. You know, they've been battling this for a generation now. And, you know, they've had a lot of victories there, but the tremendous inertia of the last gasp of the, you know, the final fiesta of the cheap energy blowout really overcame everything in the last 20 years.  I think we have reached a dead end with, you know, what I would call narcissistic stunt architecture for a lot of reasons. You know, one is that this long emergency that I've written about, this set of converging crises of ecology and economy and resources is going to compel us to change the way we live and the way we behave, really whether we like it or not. It's going to be a crisis of the human habitat as well. Our cities are probably going to have to contract. They're going to get smaller. And the process is probably going to be disorderly. We're going to have to rethink the scale and the size and the height of the city. My own conviction is that the skyscraper is going to prove to be a very problematical type of building in the years ahead. And that, in fact, we'll discover that it was really a manifestation of cheap energy and is not possible without it. I'm fond of referring to suburbia as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.  I saw a preview of coming attractions of this in Johannesburg, South Africa about six months ago when I was there. They have a downtown of skyscrapers about the size of Denver with about the same number of glass towers. You know, in this case, all built in about the 70s and 80s. And when the apartheid government came to an end in 1993, corporate white South Africa abandoned the glass towers of downtown and moved to an alternative universe of office parks in the northern suburbs. And the office towers of downtown Johannesburg were brought up by slumlords and turned into apartments for people to live in, but not really converted very well. In some cases, you know, people just living in offices now. You know, what awaits them is either ruinhood or disassembly, maybe, if they're lucky. And, you know, I think we're going to see quite a bit of that in the USA, too. The ground rules for being an architect and for just building stuff in the future are going to be changing pretty severely. And I think what you'll see is you'll need to know how to use materials found in nature and materials that can be fabricated regionally at least with perhaps less energy than we're used to using now. And, you know, what that largely means is, you know, masonry, brick, wood, I think we're going to see a lot more of that. I think we're going to see a return to that. It will probably benefit young people to learn how to build in masonry if they possibly can, because we're going to need a lot of that in the future. They'll have to understand tectonics more because building at a materials found in nature or building in brick, you have to really be able to make stuff stand up. Well, I think that the architecture profession is going to contract a lot. For one thing, we're not going to be building so massively. We're not going to be building at the giant increment anymore. We're not going to need so many experts in HVAC and, you know, hyper-specialization within the discipline. I also think that you're going to see a strange and interesting thing happen in the university scene. You know, I've taken the position sort of that in this long emergency period we're entering that anything that operates at the giant scale is going to get into trouble, whether it's a government or an enormous, you know, national or global corporation or a big university. I think the universities are going to get in a huge amount of trouble and are going to contract. You know, the capital is not going to be there for them. School is not going to be a consumer activity anymore. You know, I don't think we can be sure it's even going to continue to exist in anything like the form that we've known it. If anything, I think it's liable to return to being an extremely elite activity that is college, you know, an elite activity that may provoke a lot of resentment and grievance from people who have lost incomes and been downsized and lost their vocations and are not making it and there's going to be a lot of them. The former middle class is going to expand quite a bit in the years ahead. So we're looking, I think, at a smaller profession that is going to be, you know, they're going to be, the schools are going to shrink, they're going to be pumping fewer of them out and there's going to be less work of the kind that they've been used to for a while.