Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - agelbert

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Frostbite Falls Newz / Have you ever killed another human being?
« on: December 18, 2017, 04:29:30 PM »
Quote
Have you ever killed another human being?

Bill Perrino, Electrician (1976-present)

Updated Jun 21, 2017

I was going to answer this anonymously because of the off chance that a family member might read this. Then, I decided, I hope everyone who knew about this would read this and know the truth about what happened 41 years ago, almost to the day.

I had just graduated High School and was anticipating the joys which summer would bring. A girl, who I knew from 7th to the 12th grade, and I began dating after graduation. Joan and I attended an annual picnic put on by a major aerodynamic contractor. She drove her newly purchased convertible Fiat to the picnic which was located in the mountains north of Los Angeles.

We had a wonderful time that afternoon and we planned on camping the night then driving home in the morning. Before we went to our campground we stopped at a local market where we met a friendly gentleman, Paul, who, after we told him of our plans, invited us to spend the night with him at his place. We declined his offer. “Just in case,” he told us where his place was and how to get there.

We went to our campground and went to sleep. We were awakened by a friend of mine’s mother’s yelling, bitching and carrying on in a drunken diatribe. This went on for 20 minutes or so before we decided to leave the campground and take the dude up on his offer to house us for the night.

Joan and I jumped into her Fiat and proceeded to get the hell out of there. As we were leaving, the intoxicated woman’s son, John, stopped us and asked if he could accompany us - wherever we were going - he needed to get away from his mother. John jumped into the back of the Fiat, which, mind you, is a two seater, and away we went.

We found our destination easily. It was a couple of miles down a canyon road. We found Paul, who we learned was a caretaker for this property. Paul gave the three of us a tour of the property which happened to be a Wildlife Preserve. He showed us an elephant who was chained to a tree stump, then an area which was separated by a chain link fence and housed 86 lions. It was a fascinating place, the lions were beautiful. After showing us the lions, Paul said he needed to take a piss. I stated that I needed to also and we both turned away from the lions and started walking to the house. As an afterthought,Paul, looking over his shoulder, said, “Do not try to pet the lions.” As soon as his words were spoken, Joan screamed the most terrifying scream I, to this day ever heard. I spun around to see Joan clutching her hand while she screamed. Her fingers were attached only by her skin. I immediately remove my shirt and wrapped it around her hand. “Where is the closest hospital?” I asked Paul as John and I brought Joan to the Fiat. John was seated on the trunk of the Fiat holding my shirt around Joan’s hand as I flew through the canyon road not knowing where nor how far the hospital was. This was the first time driving this vehicle on a road I had never traveled.

As I maneuvered a curve traveling at a high speed, the rear tires hit some sand, and the Fiat was slammed into a guard rail. John was thrown down the side of the mountain. Stunned, I made sure Joan was alright, she seemed not to have any injuries other than her hand, then jumped down the side of the mountain in search of John. I was wearing only a pair of shorts, no shirt, no shoes. I found John halfway down the mountain. As I reached him I noticed several people approaching. They were from a campground at the bottom of the mountain, had heard the impact of the Fiat hitting the guard rail and came to see if they could be of assistance. One of them was a nurse and she began treating John. I ran back up the mountain and found Joan being attended to by the paramedics, which was a needed relief. Immediately I ran, more like slid, down the mountain where the nurse was giving John CPR. He was alive. I sat down placing his head in my lap, he was looking up at me. Seconds later, he was dead. I ran back up the mountain to see that Joan and the paramedics were gone. I ran back down, looked at John, then it hit me, he was dead. Devastated, I walked down to the campground in a daze. I sat on a picnic table and wept for I don’t know how long.

A married couple who were camping there asked me if I needed a ride home.This was hours after John died. These kind people drove me home where I passed out in my bed. The next morning the CHP were at the door and I was subsequently arrested for DUI, Hit and Run. I was taken to Men’s Central Jail in Downtown LA, where, I was told I would remain for my safety, in case John’s parents wanted to get revenge. John’s dad, a wonderful human being, demanded my release. John’s family helped me through the aftermath. If it wasn’t for their kindness I don’t know what I would have done.

A couple of months later I am sitting in Juvenile Court (I was 17 at the time of the accident) listening to the Judge read the charges against me: Vehicular Manslaughter, Leaving the Scene of an Accident and Driving While Intoxicated. From the audience I hear a voice asking the judge permission to speak. When I locate the person who spoke, I recognize who it is: the man who gave me a ride home, his wife alongside of him. He proceeds to tell the judge that I did not leave the scene, I was there hours after the accident and that I was not intoxicated.

All of the charges were dropped thanks to a kind stranger. How he knew when my court date was and where, I’ll never know. If by chance either of you kind people are reading this, thank you again.

Wow! The number of people who have read my answer is amazing. Thank you for all of your comments.

Once I started writing about what happened, memories flashed through my mind so fast, I could not write fast enough. As soon as I finished I submitted it. Now, after reading what I wrote, I realize I should have proof read it before submitting it and I left out some critical information:

Joan tried to pet one of the lions and was bitten by a lion. She was taken to Henry Mayo Hospital in Valencia where her fingers were re-attached to her hand. The Doctors did an excellent job.

659.5k Views · 28,432 Upvotes

https://www.quora.com/profile/Bill-Perrino

2
History / Diner Autobiographical Life Anecdotes
« on: April 23, 2017, 01:23:32 PM »
Weren't the Krishnas those folks that hung around airports and sold pencils in guru outfits or something? As an air taxi pilot I had the experience of running in to them often. I do admit they were always polite and friendly.  :emthup:  I kind of felt sorry for them because they always looked like they hadn't had enough to eat.   :(

Given the time period you were doing that job, yes those were likely Hare Krishnas.

RE

Yeah, they must have been the ones.  8) I think they would have one shoulder bared in those outfits. That worked okay in the tropics...  ;)

I was kind of hungry in the days of being an air taxi rat myself. I had a mail run to two small islands for a while (Vieques and Culebra). I tried to make ends meet by importing goat cheese from Culebra but I couldn't get connected with the supermarket personnel that purchased quantities of food items.  :emthdown: So, I ended up eating the samples I bought. That was GREAT cheese!  ;D

When I flew from Vieques to Culebra I had to traverse a Navy fun and games blow stuff up area of the ocean. I got to see depth charges shot and large guns firing in real time. They were polluting the crap out of the Caribbean especially after the bomb, you know. They towed vessels that had been exposed to the nuke tests in the Pacific ALL THE WAY to Vieques and sank them off shore. Vieques has one of the highest cancer rates in the WORLD. Of course I'm sure the U.S. Navy had nuttin' to do wid dat....

Sorry for the ramblin' I'm getting old.

3
The Kitchen Sink / Right Wing Christians Begin to have Buyer's Remorse
« on: January 10, 2017, 04:39:20 PM »
Right Wing Christians are Starting to Get Buyer's Remorse
Agelbert NOTE: Chuck Baldwin is a Pastor in Montana. He is more of an honest (liberty for everyone, not just the elite) Libertarian than a Republican. He is also A Christian that talks straight about how wrong war is, how wrong scaring us into hating Muslims is, and what ACTUAL Christian behavior is and is not. So, I post this here as a evidence that the more rational people among the Christians are realizing that, like many of us leftists with Obama the fake populist, they have been conned by the fake populism of Trump. I don't agree with everything Chuck says, but I think he is talking a LOT of sense here.

Did Jeb Bush Win The Election?

Published: Thursday, December 1, 2016 

Conservatives and Christians who supported Donald Trump need to wake up to the reality that the election is over. The Wicked Witch of the West, Hillary Clinton, lost, and their guy won. What that amounts to is, campaign rhetoric means absolutely NOTHING now. Donald Trump is the President-Elect. From this moment on, we must stop judging Trump on his rhetoric and start judging him on his actions. And the man is busy right now putting his presidential administration together. These are the men and women that are going to be in control of trillions of taxpayer dollars and are going to have their own gigantic sphere of authority and influence over our lives. The kind of people Donald Trump selects for these key leadership posts speaks volumes about the kind of administration he will have. And it is on this exact point that conservatives and Christians greatly contribute to the demise of our liberties: when a Republican is elected President, they tend to go to sleep and refuse to hold the President accountable for his unconstitutional, big-government, neocon decisions and policies.

And speaking of going to sleep, did I miss something? I thought Donald Trump, not Jeb Bush, won the election. But looking over the list of people that have been selected to serve in the new administration, I see mostly establishment insiders. The vast majority of people selected by Trump could easily have been (and probably would have been) selected by Jeb Bush. In fact, Trump’s newly formed administration is shaping up to be an almost carbon copy of the ultimate neocon administrations of George Bush Sr. and Jr. In other words, the people Trump is appointing have track records that are completely contrary to what Trump told us he was going to do when he was elected President.

Let’s review what we have so far:


*Attorney General: Senator Jeff Sessions

Sessions is good on immigration and other issues, but he is terrible on Fourth Amendment issues. From TechDirt.com: “He's a huge supporter of increased surveillance, and not a fan of civil liberties. Going back a decade ago, Sessions very publicly supported President George W. Bush’s surveillance programs that included warrantless wiretapping of Americans. . . .Just this year, Sessions spoke out against encryption on mobile phones in discussing the legal fights between Apple and the FBI.”

“He's also spoken out vehemently against NSA reform that limits surveillance, complaining about the very modest changes in the USA Freedom Act.”

“On top of that, just recently, Sessions tried to massively expand the surveillance powers of the Justice Department, in an amendment he tried to attach to ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) Reform. We've been calling for ECPA Reform for many, many years, but to stop warrantless surveillance and data collection. But Sessions' plan was to make it even easier for law enforcement to get data, so long as they ‘declared it was an emergency.’”

See the report here:

Trump's Picks For AG & CIA Happy To Undermine Civil Liberties, Increase Surveillance

*Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): Congressman Mike Pompeo


This man is an absolute disaster! He is a major proponent of the surveillance society; he supports unlimited government spying on American citizens. He supports the indefinite detention sections of the NDAA that authorize federal agents or military troops to seize American citizens and hold them indefinitely without a warrant, without providing the person seized with an attorney, and without even the right of Habeas Corpus. He calls government whistleblower Edward Snowden a traitor who should be executed. The Police State has no better friend than Congressman Mike Pompeo. (See the TechDirt.com report above.)

*National Security Adviser: General Michael Flynn

Flynn is a rabid supporter of the global “war on terror.” He will enthusiastically expand the global “war on terror” to levels never before seen. He has totally bought into the anti-Muslim hysteria that has swept through the conservative, Christian, and Republican worlds. It is anti-Muslim hysteria--created by our own CIA, the Israeli Mossad, British MI6, Wahhabi terrorists from Saudi Arabia (most of whom couldn’t even find Mecca on a map), and professional agitators from Turkey--which the neocon establishment uses to foment all of these endless wars of aggression that Trump said he opposes on the campaign trail. If Mr. Trump truly wanted to put an end to the perpetual war doctrine created by the Bush family, he would never have chosen General Flynn.

Personal Adviser: Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner


Jared is the son of Zionist billionaire Charles Kushner, who is a convicted criminal and, I suspect, an integral part of the Jewish mafia. The establishment media is now promoting the idea that it was Jared Kushner who masterminded Trump’s election victory. This is a 35-year-old young man that nobody even heard of before election night. Now, Kushner is on the front cover and is the center of the featured article of the current edition of the very influential Forbes Magazine. Let me quote a little bit from this article in Forbes. The title of the article is “How Jared Kushner Won Trump The White House.”

“Winners will emerge shortly. But today’s focus is on the biggest loser: New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who has just been fired from his role leading the transition, along with most the people associated with him. The episode is being characterized as a ‘knife fight’ that ends in a ‘Stalinesque purge.’

“The most compelling figure in this intrigue, however, wasn’t in Trump Tower. Jared Kushner was three blocks south, high up in his own skyscraper, at 666 Fifth Avenue, where he oversees his family’s Kushner Companies real estate empire. . . .”

“The speculation was well-founded, given the story’s Shakespearean twist: As a U.S. attorney in 2005, Christie jailed Kushner’s father on tax evasion, election fraud and witness tampering charges. Revenge theories aside, the buzz around Kushner was directional and indicative. A year ago he had zero experience in politics and about as much interest in it. Suddenly he sits at its global center. Whether he plunged the dagger into Christie . . . is less important than the fact that he easily could have. And that power comes well-earned.”

See the article here:

Exclusive Interview: How Jared Kushner Won Trump The White House

I suggest that anyone who thinks that the Kushner Empire’s world headquarters’ address is mere coincidence is truly not paying attention to how New World Order mystics operate. Numerology may not be a big deal to you, but it is a big deal to THEM.

Kushner is a major player in the Zionist/Neocon agenda. And in all likelihood, this young man will be the most influential adviser that Trump will have. NOT GOOD.

*Ambassador to The United Nations: South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley

Haley was a strong critic of Donald Trump throughout the campaign. She was an avid supporter of neocon globalist Marco Rubio. As governor of South Carolina, she has zero experience in international affairs. The only experience Haley has in international affairs is when she eats breakfast at the International House of Pancakes. Why, then, would Trump select her as Ambassador to the U.N.? The senior senator from South Carolina gave us the answer. High-level neocon globalist Lindsey Graham said that Haley is “a strong supporter of Israel,” adding that her presence at the U.N. “will be reassuring to all of those who are concerned about the increasing hostility of the United Nations toward Israel.” (Egad! The United Nations was instrumental in creating the modern State of Israel.)

In other words, Nikki Haley is there to promote the interests of Israel--NOT the interests of the United States. I’m sure we can already thank Jared Kushner for this appointment.

*Secretary of Education: Betsy DeVos

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump was emphatic in his opposition to the Department of Education curriculum known as “Common Core.” Well, ladies and gentlemen, Betsy DeVos is a longstanding advocate of Common Core. Breitbart.com has the report:

“President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team announces the choice of Common Core and charter school supporter Betsy DeVos as U.S. Secretary of Education.

“Anti-Common Core grassroots groups of parents and teachers urged Trump to abandon DeVos as his choice, citing her support for the education reform policies of pro-Common Core Jeb Bush and her influence through the Great Lakes Education Project (GLEP) in favor of Common Core.”

“DeVos, whose family founded Amway, was an at-large delegate for pro-Common Core Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Kasich received a grade of “F” at The Pulse 2016 for his support of the controversial standards.”

“Frank Cannon, president of American Principles Project, said in a statement prior to the announcement of DeVos’ nomination:

‘President-elect Trump rightly slammed Governor Jeb Bush for his support of Common Core on the campaign trail. Betsy DeVos would be a very Jeb-like pick, and the idea that Trump would appoint a Common Core apologist as Secretary of Education seems unlikely.’”

See the report here:

Donald Trump Announces Pro-Common Core Betsy DeVos As Education Secretary

Obviously, Frank Cannon thought he knew Donald Trump better than he does, because Trump did indeed select Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. All of her current backpedaling aside, she is a TERRIBLE appointee to be trusted with the anti-Common Core agenda promised by Trump on the campaign trail. Of course, Jeb Bush gave Trump high praise for selecting DeVos.

On November 22, I said this on my Facebook page:

"Folks, from this point onward, keep an eye out for how many CFR members Trump appoints. Over the past several decades, both Democrat and GOP administrations have been littered with CFR members. This is one of the BIGGEST reasons that nothing much changes regardless of which person is elected president."

See and “Like” my Facebook page here:

Chuck Baldwin's Facebook Page

Well, folks, it didn’t take long for Donald Trump to join his presidential predecessors from both parties and start appointing members of the globalist agenda-driven Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to his administration.

*Deputy National Security Adviser: K. T. McFarland

McFarland is CFR. AND THE CFR IS THE SWAMP!

Let me remind readers of what Rear Admiral Chester Ward warned about the CFR. Admiral Ward was the Judge Advocate General of the Navy from 1956-1960 and a former member of the CFR who pulled out after realizing what they were all about. He warned the American people about the dangers of this and similar organizations (such as the Trilateral Commission).

Admiral Ward said, “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common--they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR . . . comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”

Admiral Ward also said, “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government.”

Plus, the short list for Trump’s selection to the office of Secretary of State are said to be Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Mitt Romney, and General David Petraeus. Each of these men is totally and thoroughly an establishment neocon. And if Trump picks Petraeus, it will be another CFR member picked by Trump.

Besides being a globalist CFR member, Petraeus is an anti-Second Amendment gun-grabber and convicted criminal.

Petraeus hates guns so much that he teamed up with anti-gun leader Mark Kelly and his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, to co-found the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, an anti-gun organization devoted to "do[ing] more to prevent gun tragedies" by "urging lawmakers to toughen gun laws." (Source: Gun Owners of America)

Petraeus was convicted (and pled guilty) to sharing classified information with his lover, Paula Broadwell. He was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years on probation. On the campaign trail, Trump used Petraeus as an example of the kind of carelessness and criminality that Hillary Clinton was guilty of as Secretary of State. During the campaign, Trump said that Hillary “has to go to jail” for what she did. Is Trump really going to turn around and appoint a CFR globalist and a man who was convicted of the same kind of crimes that he accused Hillary Clinton of committing to the very same office? God help us if he does. It’s bad enough already.

Senator Rand Paul has hinted that he will oppose the nomination of David Petraeus should Trump appoint him. Good for Rand!

*Secretary of Transportation: Elaine Chao


Chao is another longstanding CFR member. She served in the cabinets of both G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush. She is a high-level neocon and globalist. She is a horrible pick! She is also the wife of the Senate Majority Leader, neocon Mitch McConnell. Gee! Why is that not surprising?

*Secretary of The Treasury: Steven Mnuchin


Talk about a globalist banking elite: no one personifies it more than Mnuchin. He was an Investment Professional with Soros Fund Management LLC and spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs. No single individual is more responsible for the attempted surrender of the United States to global government than George Soros. And no institution on the planet has done more to promote globalism than Goldman. When Mnuchin is confirmed as Treasury Secretary (and he will be), he will be the third Goldman alumnus to hold that position. The other two are Henry Paulson under President G.W. Bush and Robert Rubin under President Bill Clinton.

Goldman, JP Morgan, Rothschild, Warburg, Lehman Brothers, Lazard Brothers, Israel Moses Seif,  Rockefeller, and Kuhn Loeb control the Federal Reserve; and no institution on the planet is more responsible for the surrender of U.S. sovereignty and independence than the Federal Reserve. Talk about a swamp: the Federal Reserve bankers are the ones who are most financially responsible for filling the swamp.

For Donald Trump to say he intends to drain the swamp and to then appoint a Goldman-Sachs partner as Secretary of the Treasury is the height of either simplicity or duplicity. Either way, it’s BAD for America. If Trump truly wanted to drain the swamp, he would have appointed Ron Paul as Secretary of the Treasury.

*Secretary of Commerce: Wilbur Ross

Here we go again! Ross worked for Rothschild for twenty-four years. When Trump’s three casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, were going bankrupt, it was Wilbur Ross who stepped in and fronted the monies needed to keep them afloat and rebuild his business. Ross also served under President Bill Clinton on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund.

As I said at the beginning of this column: conservatives and Christians who supported Donald Trump need to wake up to the reality that the election is over. Hillary Clinton lost, and their guy won. What that amounts to is, campaign rhetoric means absolutely NOTHING now. Donald Trump is the President-Elect. From this moment on, we must stop judging Trump on his rhetoric and start judging him on his actions. And the man is busy right now putting his presidential administration together. These are the men and women that are going to be in control of trillions of taxpayer dollars and are going to have their own gigantic sphere of authority and influence over our lives. The kind of people Donald Trump selects for these key leadership posts speaks volumes about the kind of administration he will have. And it is on this exact point that conservatives and Christians greatly contribute to the demise of our liberties: when a Republican is elected President, they tend to go to sleep and refuse to hold the President accountable for his unconstitutional, big-government, neocon decisions and policies.

What I am seeing right now is another G.W. Bush administration developing. The vast majority of Trump’s appointments so far could easily have been selected by either Bush, either Clinton, or Barack Obama. They are the same establishment insiders that have been running the federal government for decades. Even perceived outsider Steve Bannon is a Goldman-Sachs alumnus, so I am very skeptical of exactly what he will bring to the table. 

And the reason that Republican administrations generally do so much more damage to our liberties than Democratic ones is because once they are in office, they have no meaningful opposition. Christians and conservatives lie down and go to sleep. But if they go to sleep on Donald Trump, they may wake up in an enslaved country.

Accordingly, I call on Alex Jones to be honestly objective about Donald Trump. I call on Steve Quayle to be honestly objective about Donald Trump. I call on Bradlee Dean to be honestly objective about Donald Trump. I call on Joseph Farah to be honestly objective about Donald Trump. I call on Ann Coulter to be honestly objective about Donald Trump. I call on the writers on NewsWithViews.com (most of whom I hold in high regard) to be honestly objective about Donald Trump.

The fact is, we owe Donald Trump NOTHING. He owes us his fidelity to constitutional government. Therefore, as radio hosts, writers, and opinion makers in the alt-media, we owe it to our country to be as faithful to constitutional government as we expect our civil magistrates to be. When the day comes that we lose our honest objectivity, we also lose our credibility and integrity.

I like Trump’s stated decision to ban former government office holders and employees from being lobbyists for five years. I like his stated position that America does not need any additional gun control laws and that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, he said many things on the campaign trail that sounded good, including investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton--a promise he has recanted since being elected.

I will happily give Donald Trump all due praise when he acts constitutionally and in the interest of the liberties protected in our Bill of Rights. I give him praise for convincing the Carrier company to keep their manufacturing plant in Indianapolis and not moving it to Mexico. But I will NOT give him a pass simply because he is a Republican or because he said a bunch of good things on the campaign trail. And giving him a pass by comparing him to Hillary Clinton is now moot. He’s not candidate Donald Trump any longer; he is now President Donald Trump. As such, I find it SCARY that Trump would suggest that burning the American flag in protest should result in the loss of citizenship or a year in jail. That’s Hitlerian kind of talk. The freedom to protest--even by burning the flag (as despicable as that is)--is what America is all about. For the government to punish peaceful protest is a huge step down the slippery slope to oppression. This is the kind of thing that has always bothered me about Donald Trump.

Again, Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric means nothing now. As President of The United States, he has one main responsibility: to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And to the people he convinced to vote for him on November 8, he has one major promise to fulfill: to drain the swamp! But he is not going to drain the swamp with the people he is choosing to help him thus far.

 
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3540/Did-Jeb-Bush-Win-The-Election.aspx

4
[html]


   



   Off the keyboard of A. G. Gelbert



   Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

   Friend us on Facebook



   Published on the Doomstead Diner on November 1, 2015



   



   PART THREE OF THREE PARTS



   Whatever is finally determined by scientists as the exact combination of factors that forms these monster waves, it is well known that wave height and ferocity is a function of the ferocity and duration of the winds.



   ΔT = plus 2C or greater guarantees ferocious winds of long during over wide areas in a consistent direction.



   We are already experiencing the beginning of the abrupt climate change that is bringing these destructive winds due to the increase in frequency and severity of cyclonic movements over the oceans.



   Hurricanes and typhoons are the DIRECT result of overheated ocean surface water. As heat increases, so will they continue to increase in frequency and severity, setting new records. As soon as the surface temperature of the ocean is at or above 27.8C (82F), they can form.




      Sea surface temperatures must be 82 degrees F (27.8C) or warmer for tropical cyclone formation and sustenance.    
   




   Recipe for a Hurricane



   http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/HURRICANE_RECIPE.html



   The higher the ocean surface temperature, the more often they will form to wreak havoc with ships and coasts.



   



   Patricia the Fastest-Intensifying Western Hemisphere Hurricane on Record





    



   



   Susan Casey gives us an eye opening look at giant waves.



   The book titled, "The Wave" is the overall scope; Casey links how the Earth's weather is changing to how waves are growing, and there's no denying the stats: there is a clear correlation. She visits various scientists and marine salvage folks and shares their stories; they all agree that we're seeing the oceans get nuttier, and it's only just beginning.



   



   The Wave: In Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks, and Giants of the Ocean by Susan Casey



   Susan Casey, National Post · Monday, Sept. 20, 2010



   57.5° N, 12.7° W, 175 MILES OFF THE COAST OF SCOTLAND FEBRUARY 8, 2000



   The clock read midnight when the 100-foot wave hit the ship, rising from the North Atlantic out of the darkness. Among the ocean's terrors a wave this size was the most feared and the least understood, more myth than reality — or so people had thought. This giant was certainly real. As the RRS Discovery plunged down into the wave's deep trough, it heeled 28 degrees to port,



   



   The above graphic is a scale simulation of 295 ft. ship heeling 28 degrees to port in the trough of a 100 ft. wave by yours truly.



   rolled 30 degrees back to starboard, then recovered to face the incoming seas. What chance did they have, the 47 scientists and crew aboard this research cruise gone horribly wrong? A series of storms had trapped them in the black void east of Rockall, a volcanic island nicknamed Waveland for the nastiness of its surrounding waters. More than 1,000 wrecked ships lay on the seafloor below.



   



   Captain Keith Avery steered his vessel directly into the onslaught, just as he'd been doing for the past five days. While weather like this was common in the cranky North Atlantic, these giant waves were unlike anything he'd encountered in his 30 years of experience.



   And worse, they kept rearing up from different directions. Flanking all sides of the 295-foot ship, the crew kept a constant watch to make sure they weren't about to be sucker punched by a wave that was sneaking up from behind, or from the sides.



   



   No one wanted to be out here right now, but Avery knew their only hope was to remain where they were, with their bow pointed into the waves. Turning around was too risky; if one of these waves caught Discovery broadside, there would be long odds on survival. It takes 30 tons per square metre of force to dent a ship.



   A breaking 100-foot wave packs 100 tons of force per square metre and can tear a ship in half. Above all, Avery had to position Discovery so that it rode over these crests and wasn't crushed beneath them.



   He stood barefoot at the helm, the only way he could maintain traction after a refrigerator toppled over, splashing out a slick of milk, juice and broken glass (no time to clean it up–the waves just kept coming).



   Up on the bridge everything was amplified, all the night noises and motions, the slamming and the crashing, the elevator-shaft plunges into the troughs, the frantic wind, the swaying and groaning of the ship; and now, as the waves suddenly grew even bigger and meaner and steeper, Avery heard a loud bang coming from Discovery's foredeck. He squinted in the dark to see that the 50-man lifeboat had partially ripped from its 2-inch-thick steel cleats and was pounding against the hull.



   Below deck, computers and furniture had been smashed into pieces. The scientists huddled in their cabins nursing bruises, black eyes and broken ribs. Attempts at rest were pointless. They heard the noises too; they rode the free falls and the sickening barrel rolls; and they worried about the fact that a 6-foot-long window next to their lab had already shattered from the twisting. Discovery was almost 40 years old, and recently she'd undergone major surgery. The ship had been cut in half, lengthened by 33 feet, and then welded back together. Would the joints hold? No one really knew. No one had ever been in conditions like these.



   One of the two chief scientists, Penny Holliday, watched as a chair skidded out from under her desk, swung into the air and crashed onto her bunk. Holliday, fine boned, porcelain-doll pretty and as tough as any man on board the ship, had sent an e-mail to her boyfriend, Craig Harris, earlier in the day. "This isn't funny anymore," she wrote. "The ocean just looks completely out of control." So much white spray was whipping off the waves that she had the strange impression of being in a blizzard. This was Waveland all right, an otherworldly place of constant motion that took you nowhere but up and down; where there was no sleep, no comfort, no connection to land, and where human eyes and stomachs struggled to adapt, and failed.



   Ten days ago Discovery had left port in Southampton, England, on what Holliday had hoped would be a typical 3-week trip to Iceland and back (punctuated by a little seasickness perhaps, but nothing major).



   



   RRS Discovery in calm seas



   Along the way they'd stop and sample the water for salinity, temperature, oxygen and other nutrients. From these tests the scientists would draw a picture of what was happening out there, how the ocean's basic characteristics were shifting, and why.



   These are not small questions on a planet that is 71% covered in salt water. As the Earth's climate changes — as the inner atmosphere becomes warmer, as the winds increase, as the oceans heat up — what does all this mean for us?



   Trouble, most likely, and Holliday and her colleagues were in the business of finding out how much and what kind. It was deeply frustrating for them to be lashed to their bunks rather than out on the deck lowering their instruments. No one was thinking about Iceland anymore.



   The trip was far from a loss, however. During the endless trains of massive waves, Discovery itself was collecting data that would lead to a chilling revelation. The ship was ringed with instruments; everything that happened out there was being precisely measured, the sea's fury captured in tight graphs and unassailable numbers.



   Months later, long after Avery had returned everyone safely to the Southampton docks, when Holliday began to analyze these figures, she would discover that the waves they had experienced were the largest ever scientifically recorded in the open ocean. The significant wave height, an average of the largest 33% of the waves, was 61 feet, with frequent spikes far beyond that.



   At the same time, none of the state-of-the-art weather forecasts and wave models– the information upon which all ships, oil rigs, fisheries and passenger boats rely — had predicted these behemoths. In other words, under this particular set of weather conditions, waves this size should not have existed. And yet they did.



   http://www.samsmarine.com/forums/showthread.php?15984-Giants-of-the-Ocean-(Part-1)&s=3ce56fe6a5efb7cdccd8412c349f4bf2



   ã€€



   You could call them whatever you wanted — rogues, freaks, giants — but the bottom line was that no one had accounted for them. The engineers who'd built the Draupner rig had calculated that once every 10,000 years the North Sea might throw them a 64-foot curveball in 38-foot seas. That would be the maximum. Eighty-five-foot waves were not part of the equation, not in this universe anyway.



   But the rules had changed. Now scientists had a set of numbers that pointed to an unsettling truth: Some of these waves make their own rules. Suddenly the emphasis shifted from explaining why giant waves couldn't simply leap out of the ocean to figuring out how it was that they did.



   This was a matter of much brow sweat for the oil industry, which would prefer that its multimillion-dollar rigs not be swept away. It had happened before. In 1982 the Ocean Ranger, a 400-foot-long, 337-foot-high oil platform located 170 miles off the coast of Newfoundland, was struck by an outsize wave in heavy weather. We'll never know how big the wave was exactly, for there were no survivors. Approved for "unrestricted ocean operations," built to withstand 110-foot seas and 115-mile-per-hour winds, considered "indestructible" by its engineers, the Ocean Ranger had capsized and sank close to instantly, killing all 84 people on board.



   In the nautical world things were even more troubling. Across the global seas ships were meeting these waves, from megaton vessels like the Munchen — oceangoing freighters and tankers and bulk carriers — down to recreational sailboats.



   At best, the encounters resulted in damage; at worst, the boat vanished, taking all hands with it. "Two large ships sink every week on average [worldwide], but the cause is never studied to the same detail as an air crash. It simply gets put down to 'bad weather,' " said Dr. Wolfgang Rosenthal, senior scientist for the MaxWave Project, a consortium of European scientists that convened in 2000 to investigate the disappearing ships.



   http://www.samsmarine.com/forums/showthread.php?15984-Giants-of-the-Ocean-(Part-1)&s=3ce56fe6a5efb7cdccd8412c349f4bf2



   



   MS München



   December 12, 1978: Considered unsinkable, the Munchen was a cutting-edge craft, the flagship of the German Merchant Navy. At 3:25 a.m. fragments of a Morse code Mayday, emanating from 450 miles north of the Azores, signaled that the vessel had suffered grave damage from a wave.



   ã€€



   Artist's conception of MS München facing a giant wave.



   But even after 110 ships and 13 aircraft were deployed — the most comprehensive search in the history of shipping — the ship and its 27 crew were never seen again.



   A haunting clue was left behind: Searchers found one of the Munchen's lifeboats, usually stowed 65 feet above the water, floating empty. Its twisted metal fittings indicated that it had been torn away. "Something extraordinary" had destroyed the ship, concluded the official report. *



   The Munchen's disappearance points to the main problem with proving the existence of a giant wave: If you run into that kind of nightmare, it's likely to be the last one you'll have.



   The force of waves is hard to overstate. An 18-inch wave can topple a wall built to withstand 125-mile-per-hour winds, for instance, and coastal advisories are issued for even five-foot-tall surf, which regularly kills people caught in the wrong places.



   The number of people who have witnessed a 100-foot wave at close range and made it back home to describe the experience is a very small one.



   http://www.samsmarine.com/forums/showthread.php?15984-Giants-of-the-Ocean-(Part-1)&s=3ce56fe6a5efb7cdccd8412c349f4bf2



    *Agelbert NOTE: The container ship El Faro sank during Hurricane Juaquin on October 1, 2015. All 33 crewmembers perished. The lifeboats on El Faro were also 65 feet above the water line. From the condition of the lifeboat that was recovered, the evidence indicates a giant wave sank the El Faro. The authorities have not admitted this as of yet. But I am not the only one that strongly suspects that the condition of the lifeboat is evidence that a giant wave sank El Faro (Spanish for "Lighthouse").



   



    




      "A heavily damaged lifeboat from the El Faro was discovered, with no one …"
   




   



   Coast Guard Investigates El Faro Life Boat




      Published on Oct 5, 2015
   



      A Coast Guard Air Station Miami MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter crew investigates a life boat Sunday, Oct. 4, 2015, that was found from the missing ship El Faro. El Faro lost propulsion and communications prior to Hurricane Joaquin passing directly over it. U.S. Coast Guard video.
   




   https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BQv_NxVBge0



    



   Warming oceans are with us now and increasing the violence of the oceans. By chance, I recorded the SST (Sea Surface Temperature) off the East Coast of the USA the day before Hurricane Juaquin sank the El Faro container ship. Here's the September 30, 2015 (8 day average – proof that it was really consistently hot out there!) screenshot:



   



   Here's two days later (one day after the El Faro Container ship sank). I superimposed the hurricane location. It is a one day average SST so the conditions when the El Faro sank are displayed. I was not aware that the El Faro had been lost at the time I made these screenshots. Notice the cooler spot on the ocean precisely where Hurricane Juaquin is lashing El Faro. A hurricane transfers several degrees of water temperature directly to the atmosphere, which, in turn, increases the ferocity of the winds. Ferocious winds produce ferocious waves.



   



   El Faro departed Jacksonville en route to San Juan, Puerto Rico.



   



    



    



   The El Faro was one of TWO cargo ships that went down because of Hurricane Juaquin (the 215 ft. MV Minouche that went down didn't make national headlines, because people, perhaps, might start to get "unnecessarily alarmed" about the increasing shipping losses from our increasingly violent oceans). All 12 crew of the MV Minouche were rescued.



   MV Minouche:



   The Coast Guard pilot's voice shakes as he describes conditions they have never before experienced in rescue attempts when they were searching for the El Faro and rescuing the crew of the MV Minouche.



    



    



   US Coast Guard search for El Faro; 12 rescued from MV Minouche



   https://youtu.be/_xFT9JD2f1A




      Published on Oct 5, 2015
   



      A US Coast Guard C-130 pilot describes a flight through Hurricane Joaquin in 100 knot winds and over 40-foot waves in search of the cargo ship El Faro, which has been reported sunk after debris was found. Part two of this video features footage from an Oct. 1 rescue of 12 people from the MV Minouche near the Bahamas.
   




    



   The El Faro, that went down with a crew of 33, all lost, 294 cars, trailers and trucks, along with hundreds of containers, had a type of lifeboat that is a death boat in stormy seas.



   Here's a comment by a fellow who's handle is deckofficer:



   Hurricane Joaquin vs. M/V El Faro's final voyage, weather and decision-making…



   I guess the only point I would like to make is some owners don't seem to value the lives of their crews. Schedules are tight and safety equipment is in many cases the bare minimum for certification. In the case of SS El Faro (it is my understanding this is a steam ship, not diesel) the open life boats as high on the super structure as they were meets requirements but certainly doesn't offer the all sea state conditions of deployment as free fall enclosed life boat capsules. If these souls are lost at sea, it is maddening that the simple added investment of better emergency egress would have saved their lives. I have done more lifeboat drills than I can remember, and for the older style gravity systems there was a good reason these drills only occurred on calm days.



   When sea state is overwhelming and you have lost propulsion and need to abandon ship, do you want this….



   



   Bridge of the El Faro with an open lifeboat on the port side



   Or this…



   



   https://youtu.be/a7giEX-vIyo



   Bob



   USCG Unlimited Tonnage Open Ocean (CMA)



   http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f122/hurricane-joaquin-vs-m-v-el-faros-final-voyage-weather-and-decsion-making-154191-3.html



    



   Free fall enclosed life boat capsules are a great idea. They should be mandatory. The fact that they aren't is mute evidence of the neoliberal Empathy Deficit disordered "cost/benefit analysis" that values goods more than lives. As long as people continue to line up to crew the ships, management will cut corners on life support.



   And the Libertarians will cheer them on demanding all those "government regulations" be eliminated so the shippers can make more money without "government interference". devil





    



   But the greedball shippers are increasingly going to have a bit more to worry about than whether they have a labor force or not. Thanks to the fossil fuel industry socialized cost of CO2 pollution (even though Big Oil is getting a bit of payback from the oceans with oil rig difficulties and tanker losses), this is no longer going to be about whether the "demand" for products "justifies" cargo shipping.





   



   I am grateful to Paul Beckwith of the University of Ottawa for alerting me to the threat from violent oceans that mankind faces.



   Paul Beckwith is a part time professor at the University of Ottawa and a post graduate studying and researching abrupt climate change, with a focus on the arctic.




      An Ocean Full of 30 meter Tall Waves
   



      by Paul Beckwith
   



      Published on Jul 23, 2015
   



      "Near the end of the previous warm period (Late-Eemian) when the sea level was +5 to +9 meters higher than today, persistent long period long wavelength waves 30 meters high battered the Bahamas coastline. Will we see these massive storm generated waves soon? No ship could survive this…"
   




    



   https://youtu.be/rq24d3-bIU4



   If the ships cannot handle the seas (NO ship is designed, or can cost effectively be designed, to handle anywhere near 100 tons per square meter of force on her hull), shipping itself will no longer be cost effective unless cargo ships morph into cargo submarines. The cost of doing that is staggering. Even if they designed them to ride just beneath the wave turbulence, they still would have to submerge to one half the wavelength of ocean waves.




      Deep-Water Waves
   



      If the water depth (d) is greater then the wave base (equal to one-half the wavelength, or L/2), the waves are called deep-water waves. Deep-water waves have no interference with the ocean bottom, so they include all wind-generated waves in the open ocean. Submarines can avoid large ocean waves by submerging below the wave base.
   




   http://www2.fiu.edu/~kpanneer/lab_assignment/Lab8_Waves.pdf



   ã€€



   The wave that hit the Draupner platform in 1995 was over 90 ft. high and had a wavelength of 231 meters (which it covered in only 12 seconds! – 45 mph). To avoid these waves, a submerged cargo vessel or tanker would have to withstand pressures at a minimum of 116 meters below sea level.



   That may be a piece of cake for a normal submarine but it would cost multiples of what cargo and tanker vessels cost now to make cargo submarines and tankers capable of routinely submerging to 400 or 500 feet.



   And in water that is too shallow to get under the wave action, they will not avoid being damaged or sunk. Those waves Paul Beckwith mentions will be visiting the coastlines regularly in a ΔT = plus 2C (and beyond) world.



   During WW2 the Germans actually made submarine tankers. They nicknamed them "Milk Cows". The German type XIV U-Boat could resupply other boats with 432 t (425 long tons) of fuel. I'm sure ExxonMobil will look into it when the going gets REALLY rough on the oceans, instead of doing the right thing and giving up fossil fuels. They aren't known for their ability to consider the wider consequences of their greed based, short term profit motive stupidity. But I digress. wink 



   Besides the large increase in sea level, the wave action predicted makes every hull design of modern shipping inadequate. It will be very hard to sustain our level of civilization without the benefits of modern shipping.



   Redesigning hulls will not work for the simple reason that the waves, now called "rogue" waves, of those oceans will be routine. 30 to 35 meter tall waves exert forces on a hull of about 100 tons per square meter. No modern hull design exceeds 30 tons per square meter.



   



   Hellespont Alhambra (now TI Asia), a ULCC TI class supertanker, which are the largest ocean-going oil tankers in the world



   To give you a better idea of the huge threat a giant wave or three is to a large tanker or cargo vessel, I took some screenshots from a video of a wave laboratory testing the effects of 72 ft. waves on a modern supertanker. I'm sure Big Oil is paying attention, regardless of what they say in public.



   



    



    



    



    



    



   



   



    



    



    



    



    



    



    



    



    



    



    



    



   The tanker completely capsized. In a real world situation, this is a death blow to the crew because it happens too fast to get survival gear on or reach the lifeboats, even if they are the emergency egress sealed type you saw earlier. That is why both tanker and cargo ships do everything they can to avoid being broadsided. In the real world, when the engines are lost in these types of seas, the only way to survive is to immediately abandon ship on a free fall enclosed life boat capsule.



   If the above series of screen shots are not convincing enough to the reader of the threat shipping faces from giant waves, the following video series will leave no doubt in your mind that world shipping is incapable of handling the routine 30 to 35 meter waves that the Hansen et al June 2015 paper predicts for a ΔT = plus 2C (and beyond) world.



   The following video series is the first of an excellent BBC series that describes the difficulties that shipping faces with giant waves. Some of the material I have covered is presented with some added background provided. You will learn much from these videos. You will learn that absolutely nothing I have told you is exaggeration or hyperbole.



   The threat is real and it is getting worse. I urge you to set aside some time to view them because this concerns our future as a civilization. We are not prepared for a ΔT = plus 2C world (and beyond).



   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YVZn46KgTs&list=PLF7FBE5EA5E56AF7E&feature=player_detailpage







   CONCLUSIONS



   Global Civilization is threatened within 25 years or less by the scientifically predicted ocean surface wave activity in the Hansen et al June 2015 study * and the Dutton et al July 2015 study ** evidencing a 6 to 25 meter (19 to 82 feet!) sea level increase in the geological record when the CO2 parts per million (PPM) atmospheric concentration was between 300 and 400PPM. As of October of 2015, the CO2 concentration is at 400PPM. It is increasing at over 3PPM per year.



   *Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 20059–20179, 2015 doi:10.5194/acpd-15-20059-2015 © Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License.



   Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 C global warming is highly dangerous



   J. Hansen1, M. Sato1, P. Hearty2, R. Ruedy3,4, M. Kelley3,4, V. Masson-Delmotte5, G. Russell4, G. Tselioudis4, J. Cao6, E. Rignot7,8, I. Velicogna8,7, E. Kandiano9, K. von Schuckmann10, P. Kharecha1,4, A. N. Legrande4, M. Bauer11, and K.-W. Lo3,4



   www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/



   http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf



   ** Science 10 July 2015:  Vol. 349 no. 6244 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4019



   Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods



   A. Dutton1,*, A. E. Carlson2, A. J. Long3, G. A. Milne4, P. U. Clark2, R. DeConto5, B. P. Horton6,7, S. Rahmstorf8, M. E. Raymo9



   http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6244/aaa4019.abstract



   Furthermore, the rate of increase is also rising, evidencing, not only the lack of concerted action by the governments of the industrialized nations of the world to stop using fossil fuels, but an increase in their use, along with the incredibly destructive policies of subsidizing the exploration for fossil fuels.



   If drastic action is not taken to avert this violent oceans catastrophe for human civilization, our global civilization will collapse into "sea-locked" regions unable to conduct trade across the oceans except via air transportation, a method that is not economically feasible to use for bulk cargo.



   Port facilities and coastal airport facilities will become unusable. In addition, the salt water fishing industry would also collapse, both from the violent oceans and the increasing rate of marine extinctions, creating joblessness, food shortages and widespread hunger.



   At least 25 percent of the world's arable land, all of which is low lying and near sea coasts, will be lost due to salt water invasion of the water table, even several miles from the coasts.



   ã€€



   RECOMMENDATIONS



   To prevent a collapse of global civilization into a group of "sea locked" areas, we must act now to prevent the oceans from being too stormy for shipping.



   This requires the following:



   1. The manufacture of internal combustion engines, and spare parts, used to power utility scale power plants, land, sea and air vehicles and emergency generators for public or private use, be they large or small, is to be outlawed, unless they are designed to run exclusively (low temperature alloys ONLY – 2/3 lighter engine blocks – they break down due to high waste heat if run on fossil fuels) on ethanol or some other biofuel. All aircraft must be powered by biofuels until electrically powered or hydrogen powered aircraft replace current jet engines. All ocean going oil tankers are to be recycled for low cost EV metals. All remaining ships of all sizes must be electrically powered as well, unless they can be modified to run on biofuels. Biofuels must be used to bridge the gap while phasing out the internal combustion engine in industry, the military and transportation by air, land or sea.



   2. All ships must have enclosed egress lifeboats capable of surviving 35 meter waves.



   3. Small engines, like those used for lawn mowers. leaf blowers or weed whackers are to be outlawed. All ordinances requiring lawns are to be outlawed. All lawn, gardening or snow removal power equipment not running on E100 is to be electrically powered without any exceptions or grace period.



   4. A program to phase out of all uses of fossil fuels within one year must begin immediately. All gasoline stations are to have at least two E100 pumps. A gasoline tax of one dollar per gallon is to be levied to existing gasoline or other distillate fuels tax. The tax is to be increased by one additional dollar per gallon every month.



   5. All governments must provide an EV for gas guzzlers consumer trade program at no cost to the owner until all on road and off road vehicles that are not fueled exclusively with E100 (100% ethanol) have been recycled.



   6. All public and private buildings (including the military) are to be modified to have 100% renewable energy for heating and cooling. Zero percent financing and a 30 year amortization period is to be provided to all private households and landlords for the purchase and installation of Renewable Energy infrastructure. No household is entitled to heat and cool more than 500 square feet per occupant. No exceptions. Monitoring devices are to placed on all large houses in general and mansions in particular with heavy fines for violations.



   7. After all buildings are heated and cooled with renewable energy, the remaining energy needs, plus a surplus, are to be generated by renewable energy in order to begin the process of returning to less than 350PPM of CO2. Carbon will be sequestered with renewable energy machines.



   8.The manufacture, sale or use of fossil fuel based pesticides or chemical fertilizers for agriculture is to be outlawed with a six month phase out grace period.



   9. The manufacture and sale of any product, including, but not limited to, pharmaceuticals and plastics, using fossil fuels as a feed stock is to be prohibited by law. A one year grace period will be allowed for transition to the use of plant based carbohydrates as feed stock.



   10. Water use is to be heavily regulated.



   11. Military budgets are to be limited to no more than 5% of tax receipts.



   12. All subsidies for fossil fuels are be declared null and void in every country in the world. All rigs, refineries, tanker trucks, pipelines and other fossil fuel industry plant and equipment are to be recycled within a five year period. The fossil fuel industry stock holders are to shoulder the cost of this. Corporate bankruptcies of fossil fuel corporations will not limit the liability of the corporation stock holders sccording to a worldwide proclamation of Force Majeure. Executives, board members and all other stock holders will be liable for all recycling costs according to ownership records over the last 50 years.



   ã€€



   And that is just the start. Massive conservation efforts must be undertaken to preserve and protect all animals now threatened with extinction. All governments must put these efforts on the level of war time demands simply because our survival as a civilization and possibly as a species is threatened.



   We cannot function without the use of the oceans. We will not be able to use those oceans if we don't lower the CO2 atmospheric content to at least 350 PPM.



   And even then, with the 6 meter or more (over 19 feet!) rise in sea level locked into the ΔT = plus 2C world, we will lose the use of all port facilities, coastal cities and arable land near sea level within a decade or, optimistically speaking in regard to the IPCC RPC-8.5 "Business as Usual" scenario, by 2050. Our civilization does not have the money to rebuild and replant and relocate millions of people as the seas go up and fly all cargo when the seas can't be used, PERIOD.



   It is only possible to avoid a collapse of global civilization by the drastic measures I listed, and only if those measures are undertaken within a decade.



   If not, then mankind will be split into several "sea locked" groups watching the oceans acidify and the temperature increase to the point when the methane bursts from the thawed clathrates in the Arctic ocean bottom. Then the ΔT = plus 2C world will be a distant mild memory in comparison to the ΔT = plus 4C and beyond runaway GHG hell.



   Sadly, I do not see any of evidence that any government is championing drastic action.



   ã€€



   Oil Tanker named "Prestige" sinks. Is this the Writing on the Oil Tanker Hull Wall for Big Oil?



   It is small consolation to me that these oil tankers will not survive the coming oceans. But there is a certain logic to it.



   If you find this article of importance to our survival as a species or the survival of civilization, please pass it on with or without attribution. People need to properly understand the nature of our climate problem in general, and the fossil fuel industry's blame for profiting from it in particular, in order to embrace the outlawing of the burning of fossil fuels.



   



    



    



    



    



    



   They must be held accountable and they must NOT be allowed to influence energy policy ever again. They will try to sabotage or water down all the reforms proposed at the December 2015 COP21 Climate Conference, as they have done at all the other global climate conferences through corruption or threats. Our survival and the welfare of the children of the world depends on stopping these criminals NOW.



   ã€€



    



   



   Please help the children.



   



   



   "We call on you to take immediate action to protect COP21 and all future negotiations from the influence of big polluters. Given the fossil fuel industry’s years of interference intended to block progress, push false solutions, and continue the disastrous status quo, the time has come to stop treating big polluters as legitimate “stakeholders” and to remove them from climate policymaking."



   Today, we are facing the prospect of the destruction of life as we know it and irreversible damage to our planet due to climate change. Scientists are telling us with ever more urgency that we must act quickly to stop extracting fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the world’s largest polluters have prevented progress on bold climate action for far too long.



   We call on the Parties to the UNFCCC to protect the UN climate talks and climate policymaking around the world from the influence of big polluters. The world is looking to the next round of negotiations – in Paris this December – for decisive action on climate. This is a pivotal moment to create real solutions. We need a strong outcome from the Paris talks in order to seize the momentum of a growing global movement, and to urge leaders to take bolder action to address the climate crisis.



   But the fossil fuel industry and other transnational corporations that have a vested interest in stopping progress continue to delay, weaken, and block climate policy at every level. From the World Coal Association hosting a summit on "clean coal" around COP19 to Shell aggressively lobbying in the European Union for weak renewable energy goals while promoting gas – these big polluters are peddling false solutions to protect their profits while driving the climate crisis closer to the brink.



   A decade ago, the international community took on another behemoth industry – Big Tobacco – and created a precedent-setting treaty mechanism that removed the tobacco industry from public health policy. This can happen again here.



   Corporate Accountability International will deliver this message and the list of signatures at the climate talks in Bonn, Germany, the first week of June. We will do another delivery by the end of COP21 in Paris this December.



   Participating organizations:



   350.org



   Amazon Watch



   Chesapeake Climate Action Network



   Climate Action Network International



   Corporate Accountability International



   CREDO Action



   Daily Kos



   Environmental Action



   Food & Water Watch



   Federation of Young European Greens



   Forecast the Facts



   Greenpeace USA



   League of Conservation Voters



   Oil Change International



   People for the American Way



   Rainforest Action Network



   RH Reality Check



   SumOfUs



   The Natural History Museum



   CC: UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres



   UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon



   Outgoing COP20 President Manuel Pulgar-Vidal



   Incoming COP21 President Laurent Fabius 









   Many will read this and scoff. They do not accept the FACT that Business as usual is a death sentence for global civilization. They do not accept the FACT that nature does not negotiate. They do not accept the FACT that Incremental/half measures are like being half pregnant with Rosemary's baby.



   They will say that there is absolutely no way that the governments of the world will undertake even a tiny portion of the recommendations I list as sine qua non for our survival as a global civilization.



   Perhaps they are right about the governments. If they are, then perhaps we will, because of the successful degrading of democracy and the biosphere by the fossil fuel industry over the course of about a century, experience the roaring oceans and the collapse of all of civilization, not just global civilization.



   If so, then the ocean violence, now predicted by science, was prophesied about a long time ago.




      And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Luke 21:25-26 English Standard Version


5





Off the keyboard of A. G. Gelbert



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on the Doomstead Diner on October 28, 2015






PART TWO OF THREE PARTS



On top of the disaster for civilization that a rise in seal level of 6 meters (over 19 FEET!) represents from the loss of coastal arable land, coastal cities, shipping ports and airports, there is the problem of wave activity.



Which brings us back to shipping and the ocean surface. Of particular concern to ocean shipping in a ΔT = plus 2C (and greater) atmosphere are the following facts about waves.



WHY?



Because that world will have more energy both in the oceans and in the atmosphere. That world will have, not just greater average wind speeds, particularly over unobstructed surfaces like the oceans, but a greater duration of higher wind velocities (speed in a relatively constant direction) over thousands of miles. High wind velocity and duration over hundreds or thousands of miles is a recipe for giant waves.



Here's a very brief primer on waves so you can grasp the impact of giant wave characteristics on shipping.



First, the high points of the waves are called "crests" and the low points of the waves are called "troughs". The crest is the part that starts to curl over and turn foamy when waves hit the beach. The difference in height between the crest and the trough is called the wave height.



The "amplitude" is one half the wave height. So if you have "50-foot seas", you have wave crests 25 feet above calm sea level and troughs 25 feet below it. The amplitude of 50-foot seas is 25 feet.



In the ocean, the trough of a wave is just as far below sea level as the crest is above sea level.







Energy, not water, moves across the ocean's surface. Water particles only travel in a small circle as a wave passes.







 



How are waves energy?



The best way to understand waves as energy is to think of a long rope laid on the ground. If you pick up one end and give it a good snap –there's a ripple effect all the way to the other end — just like the waves on the ocean! That means that energy is applied at one end and it moves to the other end.



What provides the energy?



In the case of ocean waves, wind provides the energy. Wind causes waves that travel in the ocean. The energy is released on shorelines. Some of the energy of waves is also released against the hulls of ships at sea. The larger the vessel surface being impacted by the wave, the more force is exerted against that surface. Being hit by a single giant wave from the front of the bow or the rear of the stern is normally within the structural design limits of a large vessel. But being broadsided can either sink a ship or severely damage it.






1973: A rogue wave off the coast of Durban, South Africa, strikes the 12,000-ton cargo ship Bencrauchan. The ship is towed into port, barely floating.



http://freaquewaves.blogspot.com/2006/07/list-of-freaque-wave-encounters.html



What determines the size of the wave?



The size of a wave depends on:



1. the distance the wind blows (over open water) which is known as the "fetch",



2. the length of time the wind blows, and



3. the speed of the wind.



The greater these three, the larger the wave.






The distance waves are apart is called the "wavelength". Wavelength is typically measured between the crests of two adjacent waves, but it could be measured from trough to trough or from any point on one wave to the same point on the next wave. You will get the same distance no matter where you measure.



Finally, the "frequency" of the wave specifies how many wave wavelengths go by in a set amount of time. So this is dependent not only on the speed of the waves, but on their wavelength.



http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/xray/wavefront.html



The "period" of a wave must also be considered. The period of a wave is the amount of time it takes for one wavelength to occur.



Frequency and period are distinctly different, yet related, quantities. The frequency of a wave is how many wavelengths occur in a given amount of time.



http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-2/Frequency-and-Period-of-a-Wave



Ship hulls are designed to withstand about 15 to 20 tons per square meter. They can handle up to 30 tons per square meter only if they bend to take the blow.






Rogue Wave Is Suspected in Mideast Tanker Blast



When a wave with a height of 30 meters (100 ft.) is spoken of, only half that much of it is what is above the sea level. That doesn't do a ship much good because the ship will ride down the 15 meter trough before it gets hit by the 30 meter monster. And "riding" down the trough is somewhat of a misnomer.



Large ships, because of the combined weight of the ship and the cargo, have a lot of inertia. If the ship is moving forward at about 13 kts (15 mph) and a giant wave is approaching it a 45 mph (this has been documented and is routine), you have a relative speed of the wave to the ship of 60 mph. The wavelength of a 30 meter wave is about 230 meters (this has also been documented).



Even if the combined speed against such a wave is just 45 mph because the captain has slowed his ship to reduce hull stress, the ship experiences a drop of ocean beneath it of 50 feet in 6 seconds, followed by the a rise of 100 feet in another six seconds.



Initially the ship just dives bow first and everybody on it feels like they are in free fall. When the ship hits the trough bottom, its inertia is still driving the bow down as the seas rise 100 feet. The bridge superstructure is impacted and often the windows are blown in and the bridge, with all its electronics, is flooded.



If that causes the engines to fail, the ship will probably sink. That is because the waves and wind will then turn the ship broadside to the waves. When a ship is broadside to the waves, it will either get rolled and sink or get holed by the force of a giant wave. Whether it sinks or not depends on how long the severe sea state continues. This ship was hit broadside by a "rogue" wave, but survived.






Thirty meter waves have a force of about 100 tons per square meter, depending on the frequency and period of the wave. Waves of the same height with a higher frequency and shorter period are traveling faster, so they have much more force.



1976: The oil tanker Cretan Star in Indian Ocean off Bombay radios for help: “Vessel was struck by a huge wave that went over the deck.” The ship is never heard from again. The only sign of the vessel's fate was 6 km oil slick.



http://ycaol.com/demons_of_the_deep2.htm



 






1980: A huge wave was reported to have slammed into the oil tanker Esso Languedoc off the east coast of South Africa. First mate Philippe Lijour, aboard the supertanker Esso Languedoc, took this rare photo.



http://www.theartofdredging.com/roguewaves.htm



 



 






1981: A giant wave seemed to want to teach a crude oil tanker named "Energy Endurance" (Gross tonnage, 97,005 tons. DWT, 205,808 tons) what REAL energy endurance is all about.



http://migciao.blogspot.com/2007/10/vagues-scelerates.html



 There is no amount of cargo that a large vessel can safely carry under these conditions, regardless of the design claims about "safe" DWT tonnage for cargo and tanker ships you read about earlier in this article.



 





Where are the largest waves found?




The largest waves are found in the open ocean. Waves continue to get larger as they move and absorb energy from the wind.




http://www.angelfire.com/crazy2/nur_filzah/new_page_2.htm



 



Waves at Sea



Waves at sea are created by winds blowing across the water surface and transferring energy to the water by the impact of the air. Small ripples develop first, and frictional drag on their windward side causes then to grow larger, or to collapse and contribute part of their expended energy to larger waves.



Consequently, large waves capture increasing amounts of energy and continue to develop as long as the wind maintains sufficient strength and constant direction.



As more and more energy is transferred to the water surface. waves become higher and longer, and travel with increasing velocities; 50-foot waves are not uncommon in the open ocean, and waves more than 100 feet high have been reported.



http://www2.fiu.edu/~kpanneer/lab_assignment/Lab8_Waves.pdf






2002: December 15, 2002, MS Hanseatic of the Radisson Seven Seas was struck by a large rogue wave while on a coastal cruise of New Zealand.



http://freaquewaves.blogspot.com/2006/07/list-of-freaque-wave-encounters.html



 



Above you see a scale simulation of two small vessels in 50 ft. seas. The wavelength is fairly large, so these vessels are handling a very dangerous sea state okay. The wave is 50 feet from crest to trough. The danger increases when the wind gets stronger. That is because the wind increases the wave height and the wave frequency while the wavelength gets shorter.



When large waves are present, the shorter the wavelength, the steeper and more dangerous the wave. And, as mentioned earlier, a higher frequency of large waves makes them even more dangerous because they have much more energy to be delivered as a force against the hull of a ship. It is simple physics that getting hit with a wall of water at 44 mph is potentially far, far more than twice as damaging as the same wall of water hitting you at 22 mph.



Larger vessels, while generally more sea worthy, have weaknesses that small vessels do not have. A small vessel with properly battened hatches can bob like a cork in a storm. In the above situation, the sail boat would probably have the sails reefed (taken in). It will survive as long as it isn't smashed against a reef or a rock.



But a large vessel, because it is much longer than it is wide, is weakest in the middle and along the sides from bow to stern. The bow and stern act as giant levers moved by the wave crests and troughs with the fulcrum located somewhere in the middle.



The middle either sags or it "hogs" (bends up instead of down). There is no ship that can be made strong enough to handle the massive metal fatigue inducing stresses of repeated sagging and hogging that would occur in seas populated with 30 meter waves. Here is an example of a container ship that hit a reef. It did not sink right away. But you can see that it buckled and cracked on the side from the up down and sideways wave movement of the ends of the ship.






 



Individual "rogue waves" (also called "freak waves", "monster waves", "killer waves", and "king waves") much higher than the other waves in the sea state can occur.






NOAA ship Delaware II in bad weather on Georges Bank.




 



… the largest ever recorded wind waves are common — not rogue — waves in extreme sea states.







 



For example: 29.1 m (95 ft) high waves have been recorded on the RRS Discovery in a sea with 18.5 m (61 ft) significant wave height, so the highest wave is only 1.6 times the significant wave height.




The biggest recorded by a buoy (as of 2011) was 32.3 m (106 ft) high during the 2007 typhoon Krosa near Taiwan.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_wave



 



Giants of the Oceans






Naval architects have always worked on the assumption that their vessels are extremely unlikely to encounter a rogue. Almost everything on the sea is sailing under the false assumption that rogue waves are, at worst, vanishingly rare events. The new research suggest that’s wrong, and has cost lives. Between 1969 and 1994 twenty-two super carriers were lost or severely damaged due to the occurrence of sudden rogue waves; a total of 542 lives were lost as a result.



G. Lawton. Monsters of the deep. New Scientist, 170(2297):28–32, 2001.



Freak, rogue or giant waves correspond to large-amplitude waves surprisingly appearing on the sea surface. Such waves can be accompanied by deep troughs (holes), which occur before and/or after the largest crest.



There are several definitions for such surprisingly huge waves, but the one that is more popular now is the amplitude criterion of freak waves, which define them as waves with heights that exceed at least twice the significant wave height. The significant height is the height of at least one third of the largest waves in a given area being traversed by a ship.






 



According to orthodox oceanography, rogue waves are so rare that no ship or oil platform should ever expect to encounter one. But as the shipping lanes fill with supercarriers and the oil and gas industry explores ever-deeper parts of the ocean, rogue waves are being reported far more often than they should.



The most spectacular sighting of recent years is probably the so-called New Year Wave, which hit Statoil’s Draupner gas platforms in the North Sea on New Year’s Day 1995. The significant wave height at the time was around 12 metres. But in the middle of the afternoon the platform was struck by something much bigger. According to measurements made with a laser, it was 26 metres from trough to crest.



Hundreds of waves been recorded by now that are at least twice the significant wave height, and several waves at larger than three times the significant wave height. Waves with an "Abnormality index" (Ai) larger than three (Ai > 3) are known.



Alexey Slunyaev Christin Kharif, Efim Pelinovsky. Rogue Waves in the Ocean. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.



 



The New Year Wave is an example of a wave with an Ai = 3.19.






 



Christian Kharif and Efim Pelinovsky. Physical mechanisms of the rogue wave phenomenon. European Journal of Mechanics – B/Fluids, 22(6):603 – 634, 2003.



I obtained the above information from a paper submitted to the mathematics department of the University of Arizona. Here is a summary:



"In this project, the rogue wave phenomenon is introduced along with its importance. The main equations governing both linear and nonlinear theory are presented. The three main linear theories proposed to explain the rogue rave phenomenon are presented and a linear model reproducing rogue waves due to dispersion is shown. A nonlinear model for rogue waves in shallow water is also exhibited."



I have skipped the math. The information is state of the art and the references are impeccable.



References



[1] Alexey Slunyaev Christin Kharif, Efim Pelinovsky. Rogue Waves in the Ocean. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.



[2] K.B. Dysthe, HE Krogstad, H. Socquet-Juglard, and K. Trulsen. Freak waves, rogue waves, extreme waves and ocean wave climate. Mathematics Departments in Bergen and Oslo, Norway. Available at: www. math. uio. no/-karstent/waves/index_ en. html, July, 2007.



[3] R.S. Johnson. A modern introduction to the mathematical theory of water waves. Cambridge Univ Pr, 997.



[4] Christian Kharif and Efim Pelinovsky. Physical mechanisms of the rogue wave phenomenon. European Journal of Mechanics – B/Fluids, 22(6):603 – 634, 2003.



[5] G. Lawton. Monsters of the deep. New Scientist, 170(2297):28–32, 2001.



[6] Pengzhi Lin. Numerical Modeling of Water Waves. Taylor and Francis, 2008. 13



And that is why the conclusions are so unsettling.



Conclusions



1. Precise physical mechanisms causing the rogue waves phenomenon remain unknown.



2. Rogue waves should be considered when designing ships and marine platforms to reduce the number of vessels sunk worldwide.



http://math.arizona.edu/~gabitov/teaching/101/math_485_585/Midterm_Reports/RogueWaves_Midterm.pdf






Ocean Ranger severely listing in a storm after being hit by a "rogue" wave.



Ironically, the first industry that started to feel the effects of an angrier ocean was the fossil fuel industry. You've already read about some oil tanker damage and losses. They continue to this day despite alleged vessel "design improvements".



But the 120 million dollar "unsinkable" Ocean Ranger, a giant ocean going oil platform damaged from a "rogue" wave, really got their attention. All hands perished. This was a wake up call to the scientists that studied waves and was of much concern to the fossil fuel industry.



The wave hit too high and damaged some electronics. The platform began to list. The operator made the right moves but the valves that should have closed, opened more. The last that was heard from them was that they were listing at about 15 degrees and going to the lifeboat stations.



Ocean Ranger reported experiencing storm seas of 55 feet (17 m), with the odd wave up to 65 feet (20 m), thus leaving the unprotected portlight at 28 feet (8.5 m) above mean sea level vulnerable to wave damage. Some time after 21:00, radio conversations originating on Ocean Ranger were heard on the Sedco 706 and Zapata Ugland, noting that valves on Ocean Ranger's ballast control panel appeared to be opening and closing of their own accord. The radio conversations also discussed the 100-knot (190 km/h) winds and waves up to 65 feet (20 m) high. Through the remainder of the evening, routine radio traffic passed between Ocean Ranger, its neighbouring rigs and their individual support boats. Nothing out of the ordinary was noted.






At 00:52 local time, on 15 February, 1982, a Mayday call was sent out from Ocean Ranger, noting a severe list to the port side of the rig and requesting immediate assistance. This was the first communication from Ocean Ranger identifying a major problem. The standby vessel, the M/V Seaforth Highlander, was requested to come in close as countermeasures against the 10–15-degree list were proving ineffective.



The onshore MOCAN supervisor was notified of the situation, and the Canadian Forces and Mobil-operated helicopters were alerted just after 1:00 local time. The M/V Boltentor and the M/V Nordertor, the standby boats of the Sedco 706 and the Zapata Ugland respectively, were also dispatched to Ocean Ranger to provide assistance.



At 1:30 local time, Ocean Ranger transmitted its last message: "There will be no further radio communications from Ocean Ranger. We are going to lifeboat stations." Shortly thereafter, in the middle of the night and in the midst of severe winter weather, the crew abandoned the rig. The rig remained afloat for another ninety minutes, sinking between 3:07 and 3:13 local time.



All of Ocean Ranger sank beneath the Atlantic: by the next morning all that remained was a few buoys. Her entire complement of 84 workers – 46 Mobil employees and 38 contractors from various service companies – were killed.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Ranger





It turns out that the math formulas for wave action were incorrect. But it took over a decade to get some proof that they were incorrect. The fossil fuel industry apparently filed the tragedy away as a freak incident. They certainly did not seem that concerned, considering they did everything possible to keep from having to build more sturdy (i.e. double hulled) tankers with the help of the Reagan and the first Bush Administration.



Scientists, up until the 1980's, had believed that it was impossible for an ocean wave on this planet to be higher than 80 feet. This, despite eye witness accounts from mariners to the contrary. As usual, the non-credentialed folks could not convince the scientists that there were waves out there that exceeded 100 feet.



AND that those waves appeared in seas that were only half as high (or less) as the giant wave(s) (sometimes they came in a group of three – they call them the three sisters – the women always get the blame – lol!). Impossible, proclaimed the scientist worthies. Fish tales!



 



But in 1995, a laser wave height measuring device on an oil platform provided the first concrete evidence that the happy math was wishful thinking.   You saw the graph of the 1995 New Year Wave earlier in this article. In this video it is modelled in 3D.



https://youtu.be/sCxr_XzyGO8



As you all know, when the fossil fuel industry wants action, it gets action. And it gets government funded action that you and I pay for and they don't pay a penny for. But I digress. wink Faster that you can say fossil fuel profits are threatened, a three week satellite survey of the oceans was undertaken. Four giant waves were observed and measured in just three weeks!



Not only was the math wrong, but, as referenced earlier in this article, "rogue" waves were not really "rogue" at all!



Of course, at that time, no connection to wave activity and global warming had been established.



Snark alert.   Yes, it's true that scientists are taught, like all the rest of us that cook every now and then, that warmer waters can be a bit more turbulent, but it's a big ocean out there, right?



Well, the attitude of the scientific community is changing, at least in regard to these giant waves.



The cause of rogue waves is still an area of active research. One theory under investigation cites “constructive interference,” which is a result of several smaller waves overlapping in phase, combining to produce one massive wave. Another working hypothesis is based on the “non-linear Schrödinger effect," in which energy is "soaked up" from neighboring waves to create a monster wave. Still other researchers are looking into the possibility that wave energy is being focused by the surrounding environments, or that wind action on the surface is amplifying existing effects.



http://www.damninteresting.com/monster-rogue-waves/



 



Suggested mechanisms for the formation of freak waves include the following:






 



http://www.theartofdredging.com/roguewaves.htm



End of PART TWO.



PART THREE will be published on or before November 1, 2015. If you missed PART ONE, you may read it HERE.



6


Off the keyboard of A. G. Gelbert



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on the Doomstead Diner on October 26, 2015






PART ONE OF THREE PARTS





In this three part article I explain what the scientific community defines as the "Business as Usual" scenario in regard to atmospheric pollutants fueling Global Warming. A brief review of the existential threat to marine life that this scenario represents will follow.



Subsequently, I discuss global shipping. I provide a summary of the tremendous importance of blue water (deep ocean) cargo shipping to global civilization. You will be surprised at how vital to global civilization blue water cargo shipping is. All the military vessels, all the pleasure yachts and even all the fishing fleets are insignificant in tonnage compared to that of ocean going cargo and tanker vessels.



I then leave the subject of shipping and the types of cargo vessels, which I return to at the end, to provide the reader with a graphic climate history of the Northern Hemisphere, from the last Glacial Maximum to the present, followed by the, scientifically based, predicted sea level and land vegetation changes in the "Business as Usual" scenario within the next 85 years.



The discussion then returns to cargo ships and their behavior in rough seas. I provide graphics to explain what has been learned about ocean waves in the last 40 years that shocked the scientific community and caused them to go back to the drawing board on the science and math formulas of hydrodynamics in regard to maximum wave heights. Some tragic cargo vessel losses from "rogue" waves (that turned out not to be as "rogue" as science had thought) are presented as evidence that the oceans are becoming increasingly dangerous to shipping.



Finally, the Hansen et al paper, published in June of 2015, is referenced as evidence of a coming abrupt sea state change that will make modern blue water surface cargo shipping either too costly or impossible. The reason for this will be explained in detail with graphics showing ocean wave action and modern shipping design limitations.



Included in the last section that ties all the others together is a reference to another scientific paper just published that provides evidence that the worst case scenario ("Business as Usual") modeled by the scientific community severely understates the amount of sea level rise in the next 85 years.



I conclude with recommendations on what the governments of the industrialized countries of the world need to do within the next decade in order to prevent a collapse of civilization (or worse) within the next 25 years.



Let us begin with these nuggets of climate science from NASA:



Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature



Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.



Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect.



The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).



"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial'."



"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said.



"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.



It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."



http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html



So, if you read some happy talk from the fossil fuel industry that it's the "water vapor" that is causing global warming, be sure and reference the above study (and the companion study also mentioned at the link) just before you call them on their ignorance, or worse, their duplicity. 



You just read about the huge difference a mere 5 degrees C (Centigrade) can make. Here's a graphic to give you an idea about how effective our greenhouse gas (GHG) shell is at keeping us from turning into a ball of ice.






 



Green house gases are vital to regulating Earth's temperature. But there is a goldilocks band of these gases that must be adhered to in order to provide a viable biosphere.



In addition, GHG changes in concentration within that band must proceed, down or up, at or slower than a certain rate in order to allow the organisms that live in that biosphere to adapt to the changes or they will go extinct.



Industrial civilization has BOTH exceeded the upper margin of the GHG band by a huge margin AND has done it at a rate far above the ability of most complex non-microscopic organisms to adapt to these violent changes. Mammalian vertebrates, among the complex organisms on Earth, are the least able to adapt to rapid GHG concentration changes.






 



There is no precedent in the geological record for the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels over the last century. And the rate those fossil fuels are being burned is increasing, not slowing down or ceasing.



Non-self aware mammalian vertebrates, unlike us, cannot use technology to adapt. This is the part the CEO of ExxonMobil (RexTillerson) forgot accidentally on purpose when he said, "We will adapt to that". Mr. Tillerson is an idiot or a liar (possibly both). Those "qualities" seem to be a job requirement for those that work in the fossil fuel industry.



Mr. Tillerson's optimistic happy talk is not based on climate science or the geological record.



"Mass extinctions due to rapidly escalating levels of CO2 are recorded since as long as 580 million years ago."



http://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906



Whether we humans want to admit it or not, we need the 75% of all of Earth's species in danger of extinction from climate change. I know it is really hard for the fossil fuel industry predators 'R' US crowd to wrap their greedy heads around this, but it's hard to live on a diet of hydrocarbons. And if we don't stop burning them, both our plant and animal food supply, along with thousands of other species of other earthlings that make this planet viable, will go extinct.



This is not hyperbole. Mass extinctions are part of the geological record. In all but one of those mass extinctions, the rapid rise in GHG was the cause of the extinctions. Furthermore, in all the former mass extinctions, the RATE of rise in GHG was much slower than today.



"As our anthropogenic global emissions of CO2 are rising at a rate for which no precedence is known from the geological record with the exception of asteroid impacts, another wave of extinctions is unfolding."



http://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906



According to the latest scientific studies on Global Warming, "Business as Usual", touted as the basis for the continued health of global civilization, is actually the greatest threat to global civilization and our species that we have ever faced.



Before we get to what exactly is meant by, "Business as Usual", let us first review the human caused pollution effects on ocean physical chemistry and temperature and marine species biochemistry.



The following review references an analysis of oceans that totally omits a growing problem for worldwide shipping. Although the review is mostly very bad news, it may turn out to be, in terms of what deals the collapse triggering blow to human civilization as we know it, the "good" news.



The World Ocean Review



The ocean may be buffering the most severe consequences of climate change for now. But in the long run we can only hope to avoid these if we strictly curb GHG emissions today.



Experts are concerned that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of methane hydrate could break down due to the warming of seawater – gas masses that are lying inertly in solid, frozen form in the sea floor sediments today. A portion of the methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, could then rise into the atmosphere and further accelerate the process of climate change – a vicious circle.



The oceans absorb many millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. They are the largest “sink” for anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The excess carbon dioxide, however, upsets the chemical equilibrium of the ocean. It leads to acidification of the oceans, the consequences of which are unpredictable. Acidic water disrupts the sense of smell in fish larvae, carbonate formation by snails, and the growth rates of starfish. The phytoplankton, tiny algae in the ocean and vital nutrient basis for higher organisms, are also affected by acidification.



The coastal environment is still being damaged by effluent and toxic discharges, and especially by nutrients conveyed to the ocean by rivers. Thousands of tonnes of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds flow into the ocean around the world, causing an explosion in algal reproduction. In many coastal regions the catastrophe begins with the death of the algae. Bacteria feed on the algal remains and consume oxygen in the water. In these oxygen-depleted zones all higher life forms die off. Efforts to reduce nutrient levels have been successful in Western Europe.



Worldwide, however, the input of nutrients is becoming increasingly problematical. People are, without a doubt, abusing the oceans in many respects, and this is increasing the stress on marine organisms. Through over-fertilization and acidification of the water, rapid changes in water temperature or salinity, biological diversity in the ocean could drop worldwide at increasing rates. With the combination of all these factors, the disruption of habitats is so severe that species will continue to disappear.



Clearly the oceans continue to be the “last stop” for the dregs of our civilization, not only for the persistent chemicals, but also our everyday garbage. Six million tonnes of rubbish end up in the ocean worldwide every year. The trash is a fatal trap for dolphins, turtles and birds. Plastic is especially long-lived and, driven by ocean currents, it collects in the central oceans in gyres of garbage covering hundreds of square kilometres. A new problem has been identified in the microscopically small breakdown products of plastics, which are concentrated in the bodies of marine organisms.



http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/wor-1-in-short/



That World Ocean Review I just quoted from, after laying out the hard facts, incredibly goes on to happily discuss ocean mining opportunities and methane hydrate harvesting plans for "energy products" for "energy independence". The only caveat they supply is more of an epitaph for human willful denial of facts than a precautionary warning. Please file the following in the WTF!? category.



Energy from burning ice



In addition to abundant minerals, there are large amounts of methane hydrate beneath the sea floor. Some countries hope to become independent of energy imports by exploiting marine gas hydrate deposits near their own coasts. The technology for production, however, is not yet available. Furthermore, the risks to climate stability and hazards to marine habitats associated with extraction of the methane hydrates must first be clarified.



http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-3-overview/methane-hydrate/



Yes, it seems the DANGER of extracting methane hydrates has not been "CLARIFIED" enough. Neither the Permian Extinction geological record nor the PETM (Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum) geological record has "clarified" the methane issue enough.



Hello? Is this, a more recent pre-human epoch, CLARIFICATION enough for you fellows providing your business friendly "World Ocean Review ", claiming, among other wonders of optimistic prose, that the sea level is only going to rise about 180 cm by century's end?






 



The following alarming, but still too conservative, MIT study EXCLUDES the ABRUPT climate change positive feedback loop effects we are now beginning to experience.



Do they think this MIT study needs "clarification"?






 



And the DANGER of an acidified ocean to most marine species, which will clearly be exacerbated by the methane bomb, has not been clarified? Didn't Professor Gerardo Ceballos, lead author of a study published in June of 2015 on the Sixth Mass Extinction we are now entering, with particular emphasis on marine mammal extinction threats, get the word?



I think he and his fellow scientists CLARIFIED the methane issue AND the CO2 pollution issue rather well. For those that do not get it, the CO2 pollution, now baked in, is already threatening marine mammals with extinction. When methane hydrates are added to the mix from a warmed ocean, acidification will accelerate and trigger anoxic conditions throughout the ocean water column, thereby destroying the food chain. That is a death sentence for most non-microscopic marine life and a large portion of the microscopic oxygen producing microscopic phytoplankton as well.






 



These scientifically challenged, insultingly naive, business friendly, bland statements sold as "sober advice" are precisely the kind of double talk that has placed humanity in the polluted situation it finds itself.



Some have blamed the scientific community.



 






 



 



They forget that scientists are mostly employees. They forget that businesses gag their reports or keep their published, peer reviewed papers from the public on a regular basis. So the criminally negligent here are business leaders, not scientists.



 



 



My experience with reading these big picture reviews of our terribly polluted situation is that they seem to feel obligated to give some peppy, optimistic, happy talk at the end.



Do these people understand what "business as usual" means? It appears that either they don't or willfully avoid doing so.



The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has a scientific name for "Business as Usual". They have modeled it. They have a number for it. It's called the RCP-8.5. RCP stands for Representative Concentration Pathway.






Business as usual is a death sentence for over 75% (or more) of life on Earth.



The people that defend business as usual are deluded. There is evidence, which I will present, that even the RCP-8.5 scenario is too conservative. And yet the methane issue needs "clarification"?






 



 



 



Dr. Scott Goetz (Deputy Director and Senior Scientist of the Woods Hole Research Center) has that thousand yard stare for a reason.



 



 



CHANGES IN THE ARCTIC AND THEIR CLIMATE FEEDBACK IMPLICATIONS: Interview with Scott Goetz



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDxw0PcRgE0



 



Friends, there is a crime being committed. But the guiltiest parties do not want to pay for their share of the damage. And that is why these reviews lack the urgency that they need to have in order to successfully convince government policy makers to alter our destructive trajectory.



But I have discussed that in my recent article,  Dianoia is sine qua non to a viable biosphere. So, I will move on to other matters of concern to humanity.






Global shipping



Human civilization has come to rely on the relatively inexpensive movement of millions of tons of cargo over the oceans.



It is difficult or impossible to avoid a collapse without the use of the oceans.



To underline the importance of cargo shipping as the lifeblood of civilization, you need to look at the massive amount of tonnage these ships move globally on a daily basis.






Tankers, bulk carriers and container ships are the most important means of transportation of our time. Each year they carry billions of tonnes of goods along a few principal trade routes.






 



 



Containerization has revolutionized global cargo shipping, bringing vast improvements in efficiency. Throughout history the oceans have been important to people around the world as a means of transportation. Unlike a few decades ago, however, ships are now carrying goods rather than people.



 



 






 



 



 



 



Deadweight tonnage (abbreviated to dwt) or tons deadweight (TDW) is a measure of how much mass a ship is carrying or can safely carry; it does not include the weight of the ship.



Agelbert NOTE: Please take note of the caveat, "safely carry". More on what that means later.



In terms of carrying capacity in dwt,






 



 



 



 



 



 





tankers account for 35 per cent,





 



 






 



 



 



 





bulk carriers account for 35 per cent,





 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 








container ships 14 per cent,





 



 



 



 





 





 



 








 



 



 





general cargo ships 9 per cent





 



 









 








and passenger liners less than 1 per cent.





 









 



In all, the global merchant fleet has a capacity of just under 1192 million dwt.



 



Shipping Activity of Tankers, Cargo and Cruise Ships on October 12, 2015:






 



The growth of the global merchant fleet according to type of vessel (as at 1 January [sic]) 2009.






http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/transport/global-shipping/



There is a LOT of shipping out there and a LOT of ships. If the above graphics have not brought home to you how much shipping is going on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, take a look at this:






In summary, this is what is out there going hither and yon across the oceans on a regular basis:






Singapore anchorage



Most of those affordable products in our homes are a direct result of a the uninterrupted global lifeblood of efficient blue ocean shipping. If that shipping was no longer possible, global civilization would be impossible because it would be unaffordable. It is, therefore, extremely important to ensure that human civilization can use those oceans for routine cargo transportation.



The oceans, as was pointed out earlier in this article, are a giant heat sink. The more CO2 we pump into the air, the hotter the oceans get. When the oceans get hotter, they become more active. This means trouble for shipping.



Insurance companies do not like that. They analyze the risks of blue water shipping and track any trends that might increase those risks. They have actuaries that pay a lot of attention to losses of insured ships.



All commercial shipping is insured. You and I are billed for insuring, not just the merchant fleets, but the military ships too! That's what the "defense budgets" lobbied for by all those welfare queen corporations, constantly whining about that "dangerous world out there", are all about.



Well, it looks like all shipping is going to find out how DANGEROUS the oceans, not some invented threat about bellicose humans, can be. The insurance actuaries already know that the "terrorist" or piracy threat on the high seas is insignificant compared to the threat of sinking from rough seas.



Of course you haven't read that in the papers. But you will read it here. And I will provide evidence for it.



But I'm getting ahead of myself. To understand what is happening in the oceans today, we need to go back in time about 20,000 years. We need to go back to the Last Glacial Maximum.



WHY? Because the sea state, as well as the sea level, is a function of the average global temperature. In addition, the vegetation changes that accompany changes in the average global temperature can have deleterious effects on the sea state, totally separate from the dire extinction threat these temperature changes represent to marine organisms.



The Environmental Change Model (ECM)



The following series of graphics deals with accurately modeled representations of the climate in a large part of the Northern Hemisphere centered on the Arctic. A link to the science and the source is provided. The average global temperature and pertinent data on the ice cover and types of vegetation is provided. Of particular importance to the reader is the different types of Tundra coverage. The legend has color codes for the graphical representations.



NOTE: The Greek letter "DELTA" ="Δ". It is used in science to mean, "Change in". The referenced average global temperature is what we have today (about 15 degrees Centigrade = T).



So, ΔT = – 6C is a change in average temperature of minus 6 degrees centigrade from today. THAT was when there was a two mile high glacier sheet edge near what is now New York City. That was also when the oceans were 120 meters = 394 feet lower than they are today.






http://cci-reanalyzer.org/ECM/



Notice how much dry and moist Tundra there was. Notice the range and size of the types of forests and the polar desert coverage too. At a glance you can see that this was a very dry world in comparison to our world.



 



Fast forward to ΔT = – 0.5C. This was the Little Ice Age of 1850. That was just before the industrial pollution revolution had gotten up to full biosphere trashing speed.



Sea level is close to the present level. Notice how the forest cover has changed. Notice how the Tundra moved north as the ice retreated. Notice how the forests and the forest Tundra transition changed.






Tundra responds in one of two ways when it goes above freezing. It has to do with the available oxygen. If there isn't enough in the soil, the microbes resort to anaerobic metabolism and make lots of methane. This is NOT methane locked in the Tundra. This is NEW methane. This is unrelated to the methane hydrates frozen on the ocean bottom, but it is still an additional feedback mechanism that increases the RATE of atmospheric heating. So these mechanisms are, by definition, not linear. They can become self reinforcing. That means they can go exponential.



Below, please find, the world we all grew up in (ΔT = 0C.). I have labeled some areas for clarity. The Tundra continues to shrink, as does the ice coverage. The forest transition area creeps north and the forests grow along with the prairie grass covered areas. There is less ice.






Which brings us the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario labeled "Business as Usual".



This scenario is considered "worst case". It does not expect us to hit ΔT = plus 2C until 2050. The boundless optimism of the IPCC sounds a lot like those fellows doing the "World Ocean Review" that mentioned the methane "issue" needed "clarification" right after they admitted that the PRESENT conditions were causing the extinction of most marine animals.



Please look at this graph:






The line with the number "1" is the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario. The temperature increases in lines 2 and 3 ARE NOT in the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario.



 






 



 



 



ΔT = plus 2C is considered extremely dangerous.



 















The IPCC projects a mere 0.5 meters sea level increase by 2050. But the study just released that I reference in the graphic claims a sea level rise greater or equal to 6 meters (over 19 feet!) is evidenced in the geologic record for this type of temperature rise.



The IPCC projected sea ice decline will give you more context to understand why it is unrealistic to believe that we will not hit the ΔT = plus 2C until 2050.



 






But nevertheless, the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario for ΔT = plus 2C is instructive because the Tundra is disappearing. You know what that means for increased methane release, don't you?






A note about the word, "Equilibrium" on the graphic: The word "Equilibrium" means that the full effects of the temperature change are being felt throughout the planet. Glaciologists had previously thought that "equilibrium" effects on ice sheets took centuries or millennia.



Now, because of empirical observations on the Greenland ice sheet, Antarctica and various glaciers in the world, they have come to accept that equilibrium is reached in decades or in years, depending on the temperature anomaly increase. As you know, or should know, the polar regions have warmed over 3C MORE than the rest of the planet in the last 50 years.



The huge differential was not plugged in to the IPCC models so they are too conservative on ice retreat and sea level rise. So, if somebody tells you that all this is a long way off, they are uninformed or working for the fossil fuel industry.



I will return to the dangers of the ΔT = plus 2C (and beyond) world in a moment.



For now, I wish to show you the rest of the IPCC RCP-8.5 scenario projections. Please remember that they are conservative projections and the effects portrayed will most likely arrive 25 years or more earlier than predicted. Also please remember that the actual sea level increase (see graphic below),






Science 10 July 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6244 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4019



Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods



according to the July 2015 paper referenced previously, will be several METERS, not feet, above the predictions.



ΔT = plus 3C






Sometime after the loss of the ice cap, all the Tundra will have thawed. ALL the trapped gases, be they CO2 or CH4, will be released. Added grasses absorbing CO2 will not be enough to counteract the warming acceleration.



There are those who expect a negative feedback from the stopping of the thermohaline oceanic current circulation (stopped by all the cold fresh water melted off the Greenland ice cap into the oceans). Perhaps that will help slow the heating (north of about 45 degrees latitude – below that they will roast even more!) for a decade or so. But it will do nothing to calm the ocean surface.



ΔT = plus 4C






The worst effect is that Arctic ocean bottom frozen clathrates will thaw and the methane will be released. The planet will continue warming increasingly faster past ΔT = plus 4C.



That will exacerbate ocean conditions even more. With more and more heat energy present, the ocean surface will get increasingly more turbulent. And we will already be well past the ΔT = plus 2C mark.



As evidenced by the two referenced scientific studies, both published recently this year (2015), and the woefully conservative IPCC predictions on the rate of the North Polar Ice Cap retreat, Antarctic and Greenland ice cap melt rates, and temperature rise rate, sea level will most likely rise a minimum of 6 meters within 10 years, not 35 years.



We are talking about 2025, not 2050, for a ΔT = plus 2C world. We are not preparing adequately for that.



For those who will point to the increase in size of the floating ice around Antarctica as evidence that the Earth is not really warming, I beg to differ.



The fact that the Antarctic land mass IS losing ice has been measured with satellites. It is losing ice because of global warming. It is true that the floating ice around Antarctica has increased and will continue to increase as long as the Antarctic land mass is shedding melt water.



This is because of two factors. The first one is that there are very high winds around Antarctica, unimpeded by any land mass. The second factor is that fresh water freezes more rapidly on the ocean surface than salty water.



That's why salt is spread on roads in winter. On the ocean, the water molecules must rid themselves of the sodium and chloride ions dissolved in them before they can freeze. All the ice floating on the oceans is water ice. It has no salt in it.



And as long as that floating ice is the product of melt water from the Antarctic land mass, it will ADD to sea level.



And when the sea level goes up just 6 feet, never mind the 19 feet or more increase expected with CURRENT CO2 levels, all shipping port facilities (and most coastal airport facilities too!) in the world are no longer usable without gargantuan and heroic efforts requiring trillions of dollars in costs for every foot the land and port infrastructure must be raised.



It seems that the countries (see every industrialized country on the planet) dragging their feet on CO2 reduction actions do not understand this. There are, as of this writing, over 140 countries investing trillions of dollars in port facilities.



No, they aren't raising the level of the port facilities to prepare for rapidly rising sea levels. They are trying to cash in on container shipping by building more container shipping infrastructure.






 



Don't these governments listen to their climate scientists?



 



End of PART ONE.



PART TWO of "Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity" will be published by October 29, 2015. 



 



Thank you for reading this article. Have a good day.



7


Off the keyboard of A. G. Gelbert



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on the Doomstead Diner on October 25, 2015






Late naked ape tool makers date: 2066



The last of the naked ape tool makers ceased biochemical activity in the most recent revolution of the blue planet around its sun. It fell in a nuclear waste pool while being chased at night by a pack of large canines. The canines left at dawn.



The ape swam, then crawled, out but lapsed into unconsciousness from treading water for so long. It was then bitten by several large rodents and bled to death while trying to fend them off. The rodents, the canines and a nearby ant colony disposed of the remains. All of those creatures subsequently died of radionuclide poisoning.



The radionuclide pollution is extensive. We have sent probes to aid existing species in maintaining some vitality. We are doing this in order to provide the biochemical substrate for reseeding efforts so we won't have to start from microscopic autotrophs in rebuilding the biological energy absorption pyramid.



It is estimated that 245,000 local years will be required for the nuclear contaminants (Mostly the one the naked apes called Plutonium but there are several others) to cease degrading the biosphere with harmful mutations.



Our DNA bank has 157% of the species populating the planetary biosphere prior to the naked ape polluting millennium that destroyed the naked apes. NOTE: We will file a detailed report on the extinct species such as the giant reptiles and mammals in regard to the reseeding timeline.



For the next 100,000 years we will seed various fungi to absorb radionuclides for the purpose of collecting them and depositing them in the local sun. Perhaps, because of this activity, the time for active reseeding can take place somewhat earlier than 245,000 years. But we must bear in mind what happened on the Zeta 382, which required an increase in wait time, instead of a decrease.



As was the case at Zeta 382, there are chemicals the naked killer apes produced in their ignorance that, though not radioactive, are deleterious to life and even more difficult to eliminate than the radioactive elements. The glyphosate poison is one of many that are ubiquitous in this thoroughly degraded biosphere. So caution is advised.



As to the naked killer ape tool makers, we recommend the DNA of this species be modified to prevent self awareness.



It seems that self awareness, though it does help them develop primitive cause and effect horizon logic, does not aid them in avoiding the manufacture of tools which they then use to wantonly exploit the biosphere that they require for life.



These beings always seem to fail through the "fool with a tool" axiom of degenerate self aware species development postulated by the philosopher Glado the Putzenko in his "Beings that Don't Understand Being" treatise. They cannot seem to grasp the idea that defecating where one obtains nourishment is suicidal when the product of defecation is an industrial pollutant.



This planet is a very depressing and sad place to visit at the moment. Speaking for myself and all of the crew, I request home leave equivalent to 20 local planet years on our home planets.



One of the factors creating stress in our crew is the fact that the naked killer ape tool makers looked so much like us.



 



Tho Observers



 



 



Respecfully,



Gardener Commander Zarkploof



8





gc2smOff the keyboard of A. G. Gelbert



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



 



Published on the Doomstead Diner on October 9, 2015

 



Klamath_river_estuary




Discuss this article at the Environment Table inside the Diner


 


​“Human Population Growth: The Truth About How Human Activity Threatens


The Condicio Sine Qua Non For Our Survival.”


 







What Is the Greatest Number of Children Born to One Woman?



As of 2014, the greatest number of children born to one woman was 69. Birth records from the 1700s show that the wife of a Russian peasant named Feodor Vassilyev gave birth 27 times — to four sets of quadruplets, seven sets of triplets and 16 pairs of twins. It was reported that 67 of the 69 children survived past infancy. Vassilyev’s second wife reportedly gave birth to 18 children, which would make him the father of 87 children, with all but three surviving infancy. It has not been proved that the records are true, and some people believe that the numbers might be inaccurate. 






More about child birth rates:



Niger is the country with the most births per woman, at an average of 6.16, with more than half of all Nigerian mothers giving birth before age 18.



The greatest number of surviving children born to one woman at one time was eight in 2009 in the United States.



The United Kingdom has the highest rate of childless women older than 45, at more than 20%.



Why Sterilizing the Poorest 50% of Homo Sapdom Won't Solve ANYTHING! 

The "Human Population Must Be Reduced" Propaganda Myth. Why it is a divide and conquer tactic and why it has absolutely no basis in scientific fact. 






The total biomass of all the ants on Earth is roughly equal to the total biomass of all the people on Earth.



"How can this be?! Ants are so tiny, and we are so big! But scientists estimate there are at least 1.5 million ants on the planet for every human being. Over 12,000 species of ants are known to exist, on every continent except Antarctica. Most live in tropical regions. A single acre of Amazon rainforest may house 3.5 million ants."



The Human biomass is tiny compared with thousands of species from insects to spiders to rodents, along with many marine creatures. 



See for yourself the Evidence:



I will provide for you a couple of links for you to research but let me give you a brief introduction to earth's biomass pyramid. 



You have different trophic levels (life forms that eat other life forms to survive). 



The lower you are on the pyramid, the more collective mass you have as a segment of the biosphere. 



Here's a quote so you can see where I'm going with this: 



"An ecological pyramid is a graphical representation that shows, for a given ecosystem, the relationship between biomass or biological productivity and trophic levels.



A biomass pyramid shows the amount of biomass at each trophic level.



A productivity pyramid shows the production or turn-over in biomass at each trophic level.



An ecological pyramid provides a snapshot in time of an ecological community.



The bottom of the pyramid represents the primary producers (autotrophs). The primary producers take energy from the environment in the form of sunlight or inorganic chemicals and use it to create energy-rich molecules such as carbohydrates. This mechanism is called primary production. The pyramid then proceeds through the various trophic levels to the apex predators at the top.



When energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next, typically only ten percent is used to build new biomass. ]The remaining ninety percent goes to metabolic processes or is dissipated as heat. This energy loss means that productivity pyramids are never inverted, and generally limits food chains to about six levels. However, in oceans, biomass pyramids can be wholly or partially inverted, with more biomass at higher levels."



 



Take insects as one example of the Laws of Thermodynamics as applied to life forms in the Biosphere trophic (food chain) pyramids. 



In order for insects to BE food for spiders as well as many other creatures, the biomass of insects has to be much, much greater because of the heat energy losses in transferring energy from the insect to the spider (about 90% is lost in heat). The predators (that's what we are, by the way) are at the top of the pyramid and have the least total biomass of all the life forms. 



Lions, tigers, sharks, whales, bears, wolves, etc. have a tiny planetary biosphere biomass in comparison with ants, earthworms, rodents, and krill (those tiny shrimp like creatures that whales eat). And the krill eat tiny nearly microscopic phytoplankton (that have more biomass than the ubiquitous krill). 



Mollusks, as well as ants and several thousand other species have a larger biomass than humans. I bring up the mollusks because they have a HUGE biomass. I studied them in depth in college Zoology. 



The phylum Mollusca: 



"The phylum Mollusca is the second most diverse phylum after Arthropoda with over 110,000 described species. Mollusks may be primitively segmented, but all but the monoplacophorans characteristically lack segmentation and have bodies that are to some degree spirally twisted (e.g. torsion). 



The Phylum Mollusca consist of 8 classes: 

1. the Monoplacophora discovered in 1977; 

2. the worm-like Aplacophora or solenogasters of the deep sea;  

3. the also worm-like Caudofoveata;  

4. the Polyplacophora, or chitons;  

5. the Pelecypoda or bivalves; 

6. the Gastropoda or snails; 

7. the Scaphopoda, or tusk shells; and 

8. the Cephalopoda that include among others squid and the octopus." 



Agelbert Note:  The biomass pyramid in the oceans in regard to mollusks and fish is NOT inverted. The oceanic "confusion" is due to the fact that some mollusks are apex predators like giant squid and the smaller mollusk predators like Octopodes that eat fish. Most mollusks are small to very small and are food for fish. They are the ones (bivalves near Fukushima) that concentrate radionuclides in their tissues that then get in the fish that eat them.  



The smaller mollusks (most of them are less than a foot long) are FOOD for fish. That means there HAS TO BE much more of them than there are fish. And I'm sure you don't believe the human biomass is greater than that of all the fish species, right?  If you do believe that, you have trophic pyramid understanding difficulties.



Now for some biomass weights:



"Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg. This figure is based on an average human weight of more than 100lbs, though (50kg, to be exact).  I don't know how accurate this estimate is, especially considering that about 1/3 of us are children. There are supposedly around 1.3 billion cattle in the world, and, put together, they may weigh almost twice as much as our species.



Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba =  379,000,000,000 kg.



There are more ants than krill. Also, metabolism plays a role along with biomass. A million ruby-throated hummingbirds will consume much more food than one African Elephant, even though both have about the same biomass (3,000kg, or 3.3 US tons).



Thus, ants, as a group, may actually consume more resources per year than Antarctic krill, even though both may have roughly the same biomass, because ants tend to be smaller, and live in warmer environments. Although there may be about 10-15 times the biomass of termites than cows in the world, studies have suggested that termites might produce almost 30,000 times as much methane per year because of their faster metabolism." 



http://www.antweb.org/antblog/2010/10/do-ants-really-have-the-largest-biomass-of-all-species-on-earth-laurie-usa.html



So how come nobody is hollering about reducing the termite population?  



As the article in the quotes above points out, humans are a huge problem, not because of our biomass, but because of our carbon footprint (I.E. the use of fossil fuels!).

And guess what portion of our population does over 80% of the Fossil Fuel consumption? You guessed it! The upper 20%! 






Who Done it? The Global Compact: 20% using 80% of the Resources

http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/other/DTIx0601xPA/docs/en/Module2%20-%20Session1.ppt



To ACTUALLY address, confront and STOP the biosphere damage that Homo Sapdom is doing, we must face the scientifically confirmed REALITY that,  if you get rid of the bottom 50% of the human population (the most poor among us), you will, I'm sorry to say, not even dent the pollution and biosphere destruction. 



AS pointed out in the biomass numbers, the amount of people eating and defecating is not the problem, CARBON FOOTPRINT is the threat to a viable biosphere. We must attack that problem by reducing the carbon footprint of the most powerful people on this planet. 



NOTHING ELSE WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM. The solution, in addition to a 100% transition to Renewable energy, involves eliminating corporate energy welfare queen subsidies for both fossil fuels and nuclear poison. 



Democracy and our responsibility to preserve and protect a viable biosphere requires it from all of us.



The "let's reduce the human population"  baloney is a divide and conquer tactic to avoid billing the top human pigs  for the damage they do, while attempting to give the rest of us a totally unwarranted, with ZERO empirical basis ( but VERY clever), guilt trip. 



It's a lie. Don't buy it. 



What we need to do is transition to 100% renewable energy as within YEARS, not decades. That will give our future generations a chance to live in a viable biosphere. 



If you agree please pass it on. Also, feel free to visit my forum and post on any subject you wish. Thank you. 



Renewable Revolution

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum





A. G. Gelbert (agelbert) is a contributing author to Doomstead Diner. He writes peppy posts about Renewable Energy when he is in a good mood. Because of his numerous efforts in that area, he is quite sure that Elon Musk should give him a Tesla. The problem is that Elon Musk remains unconvinced. He is the author of numerous rants, articles and spittle-flecked invective on this site (he copies text from Surly too!), never stops barking about profit over people and planet polluters and dirty energy, but refuses to engage in violence to stop the insane greed driving our human civilization to collapse and possible species extinction. He will be judged by many for not taking up arms in this struggle. But he firmly believes God will support his decision. He shares a manufactured (i.e. he's trailer treasure – be nice) home in Colchester, Vermont with his bride of 23 years, and is grateful that his spirit still finds his body's biochemistry to be a suitable habitat.



9
Environment / Consolidated Responsibility & Dianoia
« on: October 01, 2015, 02:50:57 AM »


earth sunrisegc2smOff the keyboard of A. G. Gelbert



Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Published on the Doomstead Diner on September 29, 2015

 








Quote


 



 



 



 





Dianoia is sine qua non to a viable biosphere.- A. G. Gelbert





Discuss this article at the Environment Table inside the Diner


 







The following article  makes a case for the premise that ignoring, deriding or mocking the high probability of the existential threat we face from anthropogenic climate change is irresponsible. Anyone who is alive after around 2040 will pay for their present irresponsible, egocentric, empathy deficit disordered behavior.



Unfortunately, the innocent will suffer equally along with the criminally negligent reprobates who support incremental measures to deal with this existential threat. Have a nice day.






The essay, "What it Means to be Responsible – Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future" by Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz references the work of Fitzpatrick, Jonas, Aristotle and others. I have summarized the essay to save the readers time.

 




Quote




FitzPatrick, W.J. 2007. Climate Change and the Rights of Future Generations: Social Justice Beyond Mutual Advantage. Environmental Ethics. 29(4): 369-388.



The author discusses the moral responsibilities that current generations have to future generations, and how arguing for protecting the rights of future generations is an effective answer to political arguments against taking mandatory measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions when these are unpopular with a democratic populace.



Climate Change, Engineered Systems, & Society Bibliography

http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Bibliographies/ClimateChangeBib.aspx





 



Theoretical & Applied Ethics Vol. 1, Issue 42 2, Spring 2011

 






What it Means to be Responsible

Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future



Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz



The concept of responsibility is a central one in ethics but it seems to require rethinking when we consider the fact that oftentimes the consequences of actions in contemporary, technological society extend far into the future. To whom or what are we responsible, and how far into the future do our obligations extend?



In this essay, I consider the question of our possible responsibility for the future, specifically the future state of our planet, and the well-being of future people and other beings. I argue that we do have responsibilities to future people and an obligation to try to preserve and protect the planet and its living beings for the future, and I present a new concept of responsibility, one that provides a way of understanding our actions in light of concern for the future.








The central problem with an argument that considers the effects of present actions on the future world lies in the fact that those acting today will not exist in the world they are affecting with their actions.








Why should people, now living, care about the consequences of their actions on a future world whose inhabitants are currently non-existent? Even if held accountable by those future generations, no price for wrongful actions can be extracted from the dead. We lack the usual motivations for acting ethically in situations that might impact future generations, and though we may imagine angry voices condemning us for our lack of forethought and care some several generations into the future, we will never hear those words of contempt.



Despite this, Attfield (1998) argues that "intergenerational justice remains a serious possibility, as actual future generations which come into being, and find that they have been deprived by earlier generations of opportunities for satisfying some of their most basic needs, could reasonably criticize their ancestors for failing to facilitate the satisfaction of foreseeable vital interests" (p.211).

 








Ethical arguments struggle, however, when lack of proximity is a factor, for it is difficult to take into consideration the impact of our actions on those spatially distant from us.

 








This problem arises whenever we are asked to take into consideration or contribute to the welfare of those who live in distant places, those who do not share our community, and those whose suffering we do not directly experience.








Without the presence of the other face-to-face, without a real relation to the other person, it is difficult to remain aware of and concerned about his or her need.



How much more difficult then, to take into consideration those who do not yet exist, those others we will never know and can only imagine.



The difficulty is further complicated by the fact that often the choices we make today, choices that involve use of finite resources, for instance, or the use of technology that may have deleterious aftereffects, may seem at the time to be valuable for the comfort, health or well-being of the contemporaneous human population. Indeed, most of our ethical deliberation is concerned with present actions.



In what way and how can it be argued that sacrifices or restrictions on some very useful and beneficial activities and technologies must be made in order to benefit future peoples who do not yet exist?








 





Responsibility in Aristotle




For Aristotle, the capacity human beings have to think about what they will do is what lies at the root of our responsibility for our actions. We are free to act, within certain necessary limits, and we have the capacity to think about our choices, therefore responsibility accompanies actions when, as Aristotle says, the "source is in oneself."



Rational beings with the capacity to choose among actions and bring about ends cannot escape from the notion of responsibility. It is a given, provided one is free from coercion in one's actions. Here responsibility is not responsiveness to the Other, not responding to another's need or want, as in Levinas. Rather, it is that since we are free to make choices and commit acts, we must accept responsibility for the consequences of those choices.



For Aristotle, to act responsibly is to act beautifully, because when a person does so he or she engages the greatest capacity available to human beings; that is "thinking things through," dianoia . What differentiates ethical choice from willing, desiring, and wishing, for Aristotle, is that it involves deliberation (NE 1112a 15).



To think things through is to look ahead and estimate consequences using imagination and forethought and to make judgments about possible actions based on experience and memory; this is the kind of reasoning that responsibility requires.



Aristotle says, "We deliberate about things that are up to us and are matters of action" (NE 1112a32). Choice is not something that is shared by irrational beings, it is the mark of a being with self-control (NE 1111b15).



Thus choice is firmly in the realm of practical, ethical action. With his emphasis on dianoia, Aristotle offers one way to think about responsibility to the future; it is the lack of "thinking things through," in preference for shortsightedness regarding means and ends, that results in acts of harm, both to the environment and to future people.



If we fail to think things through to the consequences of our actions we are not acting responsibly.



And ignorance is no justification for poor choices, for Aristotle points out that we can be ignorant and still responsible. If we deliberately become irrational, as when we become drunk, or when we ought to know something and yet fail to, we are still held responsible, "on the grounds that it is up to people themselves not to be ignorant, since they are in control of how much care they take" (NE 1114a).



Aristotle is rigorous in his insistence that human beings, because they are rational and have the capacity to "think things through," are responsible for their actions.

 









But perhaps, Aristotle says, "one is not the sort of person who takes any care" (NE 1114a5). Perhaps here we have the crux of it; that there are people who don't care, who are careless.

 






We must act on Global Warming: Climate Change has already made the world three times more dangerous.



Aristotle says such people, despite their lack of care, are still responsible because it was always in the beginning up to them to use their intelligence to make good choices and the fact that they don't care is the result of a long line of deliberations that denigrated the value of their own beautiful actions, the concerns of others, and the consequences of their actions on themselves and others.

 






 




Quote




On Aristotle's view, we always become who we are through a series of choices over time, and those choices form our moral character.





 



The Problem of Responsibility Today


 




Quote




That ignorance is no excuse for Aristotle seems to indicate that those of us who fail to acknowledge scientifically based warnings about climate change, or who acknowledge the warnings and refuse to heed them, are responsible for our failure.





 





To think things through would be to take into account in deliberating about our choices the realities that face us, the sure consequences of some of our actions, those that we have experience and knowledge enough to foresee.  If the consequences of our actions today extend far into the future, this would require that we take that far future into consideration in our actions.








It is just because of this farther extension of consequences into the future that Jonas argues that human action today differs radically from human action in Aristotle's time. As he says, "modern technology has introduced actions of such novel scale, objects, and consequences that the framework of former ethics can no longer contain them" (Jonas, 1984, p. 6). Powerful technologies in use today have effects that extend far into the future, and this includes harms that arise directly from their manufacture and use, such as resource depletion and pollution from hazardous waste, as well as harms that occur because of the scope their reach, as in climate change. The negative effects are not limited to the earth and its ecosystems but include effects on communities of people whose livelihoods are harmed and whose basic goods, such as water and air, are polluted and rendered unusable.



These consequences affect living beings over their lifetimes, threaten the health of the planet, and are passed down to future generations as the integrity of the global ecosystem is damaged over time.

 




Quote




For Jonas, technology has enabled us to greatly extend the scope of our actions and magnified their repercussions, and yet our concept of responsibility has not grown to encompass the new range of action.





 





Particularly, Jonas has in mind the repercussions of genetic engineering, nuclear technologies, and other technologies that have the capacity to impact the future in highly significant ways: "more specifically, it will be my contention that with certain developments of our powers the nature of human action has changed, and since ethics is concerned with action, it should follow that the changed nature of human action calls for a change in ethics as well, in the more radical sense that the qualitatively novel nature of certain of our actions has opened up a whole new dimension of ethical relevance for which there is no precedent in the standards and canons of traditional ethics" (1984, p. 1).



For example, the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf had consequences that extend far into the future, affecting marine and coastal ecosystems, the livelihood of human beings dependent on a healthy environment for sustenance, and marine life far from the origin of the spill.



Ecosystems are by nature interconnected and interdependent, and the reach of the spill was extensive. Its impact is not limited in space or time. As well, we might ask who exactly is responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf? Is it the technicians and engineers, the government regulations that allow drilling to be done in extreme conditions, the companies making a profit, or the consumers whose desire for cheap fossil fuel drives the market?



This kind of diffusion of responsibility, a diffuse collective responsibility that Stephen Gardiner refers to as a "fragmentation of agency," means that it is difficult to assign responsibility.



As Gardiner points out, "climate change is caused not by a single agent but by a vast number of individuals and institutions not unified by a comprehensive structure of agency. This is important because it poses a challenge to humanity's ability to respond" (2010, p. 88).



How much is up to us then, to use Aristotle's term, in today's technological, global world? The notion of collective responsibility is pertinent because in a democratic society responsibility for collective actions like oil drilling would seem to rest with all citizens.



How we are to understand democratic responsibility, diffused among many, is a significant problem given the altered nature of human action and the extended reach of the consequences of our actions. And because the consequences will fall primarily on future generations, there is a disincentive to alter our behavior, particularly if that might make current lives more difficult.






 






 








Quote


 



 



 



 





While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.

The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist





 


 



 



 



 





 




Quote




Without a Trace ‘The Sixth Extinction,’ by Elizabeth Kolbert



New York Times Sunday Book Review Snippet:



In the same way, and for many of the same reasons, many today find it inconceivable that we could possibly be responsible for destroying the integrity of our planet’s ecology.



There are psychological barriers to even imagining that what we love so much could be lost — could be destroyed forever.



As a result, many of us refuse to contemplate it. Like an audience entertained by a magician, we allow ourselves to be deceived by those with a stake in persuading us to ignore reality. …



… we continue to use the world’s atmosphere as an open sewer for the daily dumping of more than 90 million tons of gaseous waste. …



… The resulting rapid warming of both the atmosphere and the ocean, which Kolbert notes has absorbed about one-third of the carbon dioxide we have produced, is wreaking havoc on earth’s delicately balanced ecosystems.



It threatens both the web of living species with which we share the planet  and the future viability of civilization. “By disrupting these systems,” Kolbert writes, "we’re putting our own survival in danger.”





 



While a new ethical understanding that takes into consideration the extended consequences of our actions in a technological society seems necessary, another question arises: where do our obligations end if we begin to think of extending them to future beings and the future existence of a livable planet?

 








How might such seemingly open-ended obligations be argued for? And if, to be responsible, as Aristotle claims, is to "think things through," are there limits to our capacity to be responsible?



Rethinking Responsibility




Here I think it is a good moment to turn to Jonas, who argues in The Imperative of Responsibility that, difficult as it may seem, we do have a responsibility for the future.



He presents an argument for responsibility based on the presence of an objectively existing good, and he claims that fulfillment of the human good results from taking the effects of our actions on the future into account (Jonas, 1984, pp. 80-82).



When we are not able to predict the long-term consequences of our actions he argues that we should proceed with prudence, even to the extent of being guided by fear, in order to ensure that we do not create extensive future harms.

 








For Jonas, the human being occupies a special place in the lifeworld. Jonas sees the human being as that being which is uniquely capable of responsibility, and the presence of this capacity entails that it must be acted on if a one is to fully become the being one is capable of becoming.



The capacity for responsibility contributes to the "what it is to be" a human being and as such, informs the telos of human being. Jonas says that




Quote




"every living thing has its own end which needs no further justification. In this, man has nothing over other living beings, except that he alone can have responsibility also for them, that is, for guarding their self-purpose" (Jonas, 1984, p. 98).





 





For Jonas, the fact that each organism desires and pursues the continuance of its own life points to the fact that life is a value for each being. Life is a good and as such it presents the being with the capacity to take responsibility with an imperative to protect and preserve it, to recognize the value it is for all living beings. The particular human good lies in the capacity of the human being to recognize and respond to the imperative of responsibility.

 




Quote




The practice of taking responsibility for our choices, of taking the well-being and future of the planet and its beings into consideration, draws out the higher capabilities of the rational animal.





 





For Jonas, the imperative of responsibility commands us to respond ethically for the sake of the good that is evidenced in Being, a good that reveals itself in each living beings' pursuit of its own continuance, its desire for life.



As well, responsibility includes protecting the possibility for the continued existence of human freedom and ethical responsiveness.



As Jonas says, "the secret or paradox of morality is that the self forgets itself over the pursuit of the object, so that a higher self (which indeed is also a good in itself) might come into being.

 




Quote




The good man is not he who made himself good but rather he who did the good for its own sake.





 





As Jonas tries to show, the good of the human and the good in the world are not separate but the same.

 






 




Quote




Taking responsibility for the future becomes necessary as soon as we recognize our potential to harmfully impact the future and, as Aristotle argues, once this recognition registers, ignorance is no longer an acceptable plea.





 



 



Rights and Responsibility




Another means of arguing for responsibilities to future generations, one that is less metaphysical and more supportive of political action, is to consider the question of the rights of future people. A proponent of this view is Hiskes (2009), who argues that "global warming and climate change have made it abundantly clear that the human impact on the environment is an emergent one, the product of uncounted individual decisions and choices on one hand, and public policies and political omissions on the other, which make every one of us responsible for putting all the rest of us in a new situation of risk, and not only "all of us" but those who come after us as well" (p.146).

 








Hiskes goes on to explain that "rights are necessarily the legal response to harms, real or potential. The fact that they are new and collective harms that do not fit within the traditional individualist language of either rights or responsibility do not alter the equation of rights as a response to harm.



New harms demand new rights. Because they are emergent harms, the rights that they begat will share their emergent ontological nature" (p. 146).

 




Quote




This argument supports the contention that we cannot disregard responsibilities to the future simply because future people do not now exist.





 





Future people are continually coming into existence, even as the effects of our actions emerge over long periods of time. There is a synchrony in terms of the emergence of future beings and the emergence of harms.



Both are initiated in the present, in the actions of present day beings, and both concern a time after present day actors are gone.



Future needs are predictable and future beings are coming into being all the time. It is not as if the future exists at some point far into the distance, with no connection to the present. The future is always coming into being, it follows closely on the heels of the present, and while we see changes in each generation, physical human beings will always need clean air to breathe and water to drink, as well as fire to stay warm.

 




Quote




The realities of life for future beings are being established now through our contemporary actions and this is a fact we cannot deny. If we refuse to take responsibility for the impact of our actions on future generations, we must admit that we are willfully disregarding this fundamental reality and its ethical implications.





 



In a similar vein, Fitzpatrick (2007) argues that a conception of justice based upon a notion of "mutual advantage among cooperating parties of roughly equal power and vulnerability" is too restrictive (p. 377).



Justice, insofar as it relates to rights and obligations, is a concept not limited to those sharing space and time. He says that, "attribution of rights to future generations will therefore be legitimate if we can speak of an earlier generation's wronging future generations by spoiling the environment the former was given and has relied upon for its flourishing in the same way that future generations depend upon it for theirs" (Fitzpatrick, 2007, p. 377).



 




Quote




Fitzpatrick turns to a notion of stewardship to frame the question of responsibilities to future generations; contemporary inhabitants of the Earth do not own it, they have merely inherited it and should care for it sustainably in order to pass a flourishing environment down to future generations.





 





Future generations have a right to inherit a healthy ecosystem, just as we did, and this right entails an obligation on the part of the living to pass down a viable planet. The responsibility to do so is centered in the right future generations have to be protected from harms caused by others, as well as the right to inherit and enjoy what previous generations have inherited and enjoyed.



That people depend upon a healthy environment to flourish, and that a diminished environment is harmful to people is at the basis of Fitzpatrick's argument.




Quote




"The core responsibility assigned to governments in democracies is the public welfare, protecting the human birthright to basic needs: clean air, water, land, and a place to live, under equitable rules of access to all common property resources.



It is astonishing to discover that major political efforts in democracies can be turned to undermining the core purpose of government, destroying the factual basis for fair and effective protection of essential common property resources of all to feed the financial interests of a few.



These efforts, limiting scientific research on environment, denying the validity of settled facts and natural laws, are a shameful dance, far below acceptable or reputable political behavior. It can be treated not as a reasoned alternative, but scorned for what it is – simple thievery." —George M. Woodwell, Woods Hole Research Center founder





 





He considers future people to be the moral equals of presently living people, and therefore claims we cannot disregard their rights or turn aside from our responsibility not to cause them harm.



He argues that "if we fail to conserve limited natural resources, or to control dangerous waste, or to curb greenhouse gas emissions, then we will be causing people harm, not merely failing to benefit them" (Fitzpatrick, 2007, p. 377).



 




Quote




The currently prevailing “law of the jungle”, causing the atmosphere to be overused in terms of the deposition of carbon ad infinitum, is thus de-legitimized by the Pope.



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/heaven-belongs-to-us-all-the-new-papal-encyclical/#sthash.MYn2tGnT.dpuf





 





The fact that these people do not exist simultaneously with us is not a reason to fail to take them into ethical consideration. Fitzpatrick concludes by arguing that we need to reconsider the meaning of justice rights in order to include responsibilities to future generations in our consideration because there is simply no justification possible for disregarding the effects of our actions on the future.

 








 




Quote




There is no doubt that accepting responsibility for the future will require a great deal of effort and even sacrifice on the part of those of us living today.





 






In the next and final section, I take a brief look at the way in which an ethic of care might provide the needed motivation for the difficult changes that taking future generations into ethical consideration might require.

 






 



Motivation and Care




To accept the burden of responsibility for what is up to us, difficult as it is where our technological reach is so extended and agency is so fragmented, is to strive to fulfill the capacity we have to respond to the good and protect and preserve it.

 








This task, however, is difficult, not only because of the extent of effects in time and space, fragmentation of agency, and the difficulty of predicting harms, but also because in many cases we may benefit now from actions that result in harms to future generations.

 






What could motivate us to make the necessary sacrifices required by responsibility of this scope and nature?



Jonas turns to the human capacity for care for an answer to this question. He uses the analogy of the parent and child to demonstrate that we are attuned to caring in a fundamental way (Jonas, 1984, pp. 98-108).



 Jonas sees that caring is a mode of being for the human being, one that is demonstrated naturally in the attention and love parents give to their children as they nourish these beings who will exist in the future.



It can be argued that the care of children is ultimately selfish, a way to project particular and individual genetic material forward. Yet, at the same time, most stable societies demonstrate their concern and care about the future through the fostering of all children in the society and through their concern with passing down cultural and physical artifacts to posterity.

 




Quote




If selfish instincts were at issue here, individuals would not bequeath to unknown future others the endowments and monuments and institutions they have.





 





Jonas’ example of the statesman as a paradigm of responsibility toward the future reflects the important role of democratic social institutions and governments in responsibility. Established to foster and preserve culture and enable the orderly transfer of power from generation to generation, governments, at their best, are concerned with bettering the conditions of the people and ensuring that opportunities, values, artifacts, inventions, techniques, and other "objects" cultivated and produced by society are preserved and passed down.



This example illustrates the presence, in social institutions, of a fundamental care and concern with the future and future peoples that can serve as an example and guide for a practical ethic of responsibility for the future.



It is only through care of the future that we can extend the reach of our grasp on life through bequeathing a planet that is livable and viable, one that preserves and protects the cycle of life for the beings who will inhabit it.



The natural drive toward transcendence of finitude through leaving behind works, objects or beings of lasting value can be engaged as a motivating force in an ethics that is concerned with extending its reach to future generations.

 






 




Quote




There is, finally, another way to think of the role of care as a motivating force for assuming responsibility; not necessarily care or love for future persons unknown to us, but love for the Earth and for life itself.





 





Perhaps we should reframe the question of an ethics of responsibility for the future, because it can be argued that we are motivated to moderate and measure our actions toward nature and to care about the health and continued viability of the Earth because of our love for it, and for the life it offers.



We are capable of caring not only about those potential beings of the future who will inherit this planet but also about the planet itself as a living being we will pass down.[1] Inspired by the beauty of existence, fleeting though it is, we desire its continuance even though we will not be here to enjoy its pleasures forever, and this too is reflective of our ethical capacity.

 



Conclusion




In the preceding I've shown what I see is a need for a reconsidered understanding of the meaning and extent of responsibility today, and I've talked about some of the difficulties facing us in attempting to accept responsibility for the future, as well as some of the motivational forces that might help us overcome those difficulties.



To begin to take responsibility for the Earth and future generations we can consider ourselves as caretakers, trustees or stewards. We can pursue sustainable practices that conserve resources and other basic goods for future generations to benefit from and enjoy.



Recognizing the presence of the good in existence, we can protect it by considering the long-term effects of our choices and actions on the future. The damage we've done has been done collectively, as Fitzpatrick points out, and the only way to prevent further damage and protect the future is through collective action.

 








Taking responsibility will require thinking about ourselves differently, as well. We must develop a new self understanding, one that reflects our increasing knowledge concerning the extent of the effects of our actions on the Earth and the future. The human capacity for responsibility is a reflection of what Jonas calls "the higher self," a good-in-itself that comes into being when we recognize the value of life, reflect on the consequences of our choices, and take responsibility for the harms we cause.



Thus, a significant aspect of the good of the human being is the human capacity to bear responsibility.



The continued existence of the good for all beings rests on humans assuming that responsibility, and the time for us to recognize that is now.



If we fail to take responsibility it will be a failure of justice and of love, towards both future beings and the planet.



 








Notes



1. "When men act for the sake of a future they will not live to see, it is for the most part out of love for persons, places and forms of activity, a cherishing of them, nothing more grandiose. It is indeed self-contradictory to say: 'I love him or her or that place or that institution or that activity, but I don't care what happens to it after my death.' To love is, amongst other things, to care about the future of what we love" (Passmore, 1980, p. 53



References



Adam, G. (2011). Futures Tended: Care and Future-Oriented Responsibility. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society,

31, 1, 17-27.



Aristotle. (2002). Nicomachean Ethics, J. Sachs (trans). Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing.



Attfield, R. (1998). Environmental Ethics and Intergenerational Equity. Inquiry, 41, 2, 207-222.



Fitzpatrick, W. J. (2007). Climate Change and the Rights of Future Generations: Social Justice Beyond Mutual Advantage.



Environmental Ethics, 29, 4, 369-388.



Gardiner, S. M. (2010). A Perfect Moral Storm. In Climate Ethics. NY: Oxford University Press.



Hiskes, R. P. (2009). The Human Right to a Green Future. NY: Cambridge University Press.



Jonas, H. (1984). The Imperative of Responsibility. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.



Passmore, J. (1980). Conservation. In Responsibilities to Future Generations. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books..



https://blogs.montclair.edu/tae/files/2011/03/Vol.-1-Issue-2-Morris.pdf



Agelbert NOTE: The mens rea of the fossil fuel industry and almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies, including Procter & Gamble and Duke Energy, has been recently exposed. They all funded lobbyists and propagandists in order to obstruct climate change legislation.



I use the Latin legal expression, "mens rea", because the above obstructionists of climate change legislation were knowledgeable over 40 years ago of the damage that burning fossil fuels causes to the biosphere in general and humans in particular.



As Theresa  Morris made quite clear in her essay, these corporations made the wrong choice. And they made that choice because they refused to think things through.



Theresa  Morris said,




Quote




This task, however, is difficult, not only because of the extent of effects in time and space, fragmentation of agency, and the difficulty of predicting harms, but also because in many cases we may benefit now from actions that result in harms to future generations.





 





Ethical considerations aside for a moment, the people in these powerful corporations are not stupid. They love their own children.

So, if they knew, because over 40 years ago ExxonMobil scientists laid out the facts to oil executives, who then secretly joined with several other corporations to fund denial of climate change and obstruct climate change legislation, why did they, with malice and aforethought, engage in disguising the fact that they were, and are, getting an F in viable biosphere math?



Some will say that it's a no brainer that they did it for profit. While that is partially true, it ignores the fact that big oil corporations DO believe their own scientists. It also ignores the fact that fossil fuel corporations DO NOT believe the happy talk propaganda that they fund.



They plan ahead. They plan to take advantage of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' mentioned by  Stephen Gardiner. The corporations did not get limited liability laws passed because they wanted to be socially responsible. I believe they will use the 'Fragmentation of Agency', in regard to biosphere damage claims, to unjustly limit their liability in a typically unethical "damage control" exercise.



One of the themes about human history that I have tried to communicate to readers over and over is that predatory capitalist corporations, while deliberately profiting from knowingly doing something that causes pollution damage to the populace, always plan AHEAD to socialize the costs of that damage when they can no longer deny SOME liability for it. Their conscience free lackey lawyers will always work the system to limit even PROVEN 100% liability.



When 100% liability is blatantly obvious, as in the Exxon Valdes oil spill, they will shamelessly use legalese to limit the liability. ExxonMobil pulled a fast one on the plaintiffs by getting "punitive", rather than "compensatory" damages. See what the learned counselor said, "The purpose of punitive awards is to punish, not to destroy, according to the law". Ethics free Exxon and its ethics free lawyers KNOW how the Court System "works". JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 18:151] The purpose of this comment is to describe the history of the Exxon Valdez litigation and analyze whether the courts and corresponding laws are equipped to effectively handle mass environmental litigation..



While the profits are rolling in, they will claim they are "just loyal public servants, selflessly providing a service that the public is demanding", while they laugh all the way to the bank. When the damage is exposed, they will claim we are "all equally to blame" (i.e. DISTORTED Fragmentation of Agency).



This is clearly false because polluting corporations, in virtually all cases, AREN'T non-profit organizations. If they were NOT PROFITING, THEN, and only then, could they make the claim that "we all benefited equally so we all are equally responsible to pay equally for the cost."



Those who presently benefit economically from the burning of fossil fuels, despite the scientific certainty that this is ushering in a Permian level mass extinction, will probably be quick to grab on to a severely distorted and duplicitous version of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' meme, in regard to assigning the proportionate blame for the existential threat our species is visiting on future generations.



Privatizing the profits and socializing the costs is what they have done for over a century in the USA. They have always gotten away with it. That is why, despite having prior knowledge that their children would be negatively impacted by their decisions, they decided to dispense with ethical considerations.



They assumed that, with all the profits they would accumulate over the last 40 years (or as long as the populace can be blinded to the truth of the existential threat), they could protect their offspring when things got "difficult".



They know that millions to billions of people, in all probability, will die. But they think their wealth can enable them to survive and thrive.  



As for the rest of us, who obtained a pittance in benefits in comparison to the giant profits the polluters raked (and still continue to rake) in, we can expect an army of corporate lawyers descending on our government(s) demanding that all humans, in equal portions, foot the bill for ameliorating climate change.



The lawyer speak will probably take the form of crocodile tears about the "injustice of punitive measures" or, some double talk legalese limiting "punitive damage claims" based on Environmental LAW fun and games (see: "punitive" versus "compensatory" damage claims).



This grossly unjust application of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' is happening as we speak. The poorest humans are paying the most with their health for the damage done by the richest. The richest have avoided most, or all, of the deleterious effects of climate change.



When the governments of the world finally get serious about the funding needed to try to clean this mess up (present incremental measures ARE NOT sufficient), the rich plan to continue literally getting away with ecocide, and making sure they don't pay their share of the damages for it. 



As Kevin Anderson (after showing the alarming rate of increase in CO2 emissions) put it in the graphic below, the 1% bear about 50% of the blame.

 








Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should look like this:






The way the fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies, will want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart to look like is as follows:

 








The world of business has made many Empathy Deficit Disordered, unethical choices. We are all paying for their rejection of  their responsibility to use dianoia in their decision making process.



But they are relatively few in number. Their chicanery would cease from a huge public outcry if they did not have so many people aiding and abetting their unethical biosphere destroying modus operandi.



Those are the comfortable millions who have swallowed the corporate happy talk propaganda.



Those are the people that continue to delay progress on the implementation of the drastic government action we must demand, which is desperately needed to stem, or eliminate, the length and breadth of the climate change damage existential threat.



The people who think that this climate change horror can be addressed by incremental measures are, as Aristotle said, deliberately becoming irrational.

 




Quote




Thus choice is firmly in the realm of practical, ethical action. With his emphasis on dianoia , Aristotle offers one way to think about responsibility to the future;



it is the lack of "thinking things through," in preference for shortsightedness regarding means and ends, that results in acts of harm, both to the environment and to future people.



If we fail to think things through to the consequences of our actions we are not acting responsibly.



And ignorance is no justification for poor choices, for Aristotle points out that we can be ignorant and still responsible.



If we deliberately become irrational, as when we become drunk, or when we ought to know something and yet fail to, we are still held responsible, "on the grounds that it is up to people themselves not to be ignorant, since they are in control of how much care they take" (NE 1114a).





 





Dianoia is sine qua non to a viable biosphere.



Please pass this on with attribution to Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz. I just summarized her essay and added images to enhance the gravity and importance of her message. We are in a world of trouble. 



A. G. Gelbert

Colchester, Vermont



10
[html]


   gc2smOff the keyboard of A.G. Gelbert



   Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

   Friend us on Facebook



   Published on the Doomstead Diner on September 16, 2015



   

   On June 10th wrote Sæmundur Magnusson Holm at the University of Copenhagen, falling ash coloured black the deck and sails of ships travelling to Denmark.


   

   Discuss this article at the History Table inside the Diner



   

   Most people are propagandized by the leaders of the societies they live in to believe that history is simply a collection of facts strung in chronological order. The truth is far more nuanced.



   Historians interpret the importance of events as if they are the only ones qualified to do so, or just leave them out all together, for allegedly "objective" scholarly reasons. Nothing could be further from the truth.  Human history is rife with key pivotal events that don't make it into the flag waving, hero worshipping, designated bad guy demonizing, condensed narrative.



   The fact that these key events are deemed "not credible" as key events by the academic community, despite the fact that said "scholars" (see lock step lackeys) accept that the event occurred, should be a red flag to anyone that still retains the ability to think critcally.



   I have written about the Piri Reis maps in an article titled Evidence that Demands a Verdict: The Consensus Historical View that Piri Reis used South American Coastline maps made by Columbus . I have pointed out how they do not "fit" the world view of the "scholars" of history. But that is an extreme example of the capacity, willingness and bulheadedness of historians to engage in agnotology (i.e. culturally induced ignorance or doubt) to avoid admitting even the possibility that their narrative is, not just flawed due to innocent mistakes, but a product of status quo defending mens rea.



   So what else is new? Humans lie to puff themselves up. We all know that, right? Or do we?



   Here, on this forum, among highly educated, intelligent people. I occasionally run into assumptions about our history that are the product of agnotology propaganda. Individuals who are properly cynical of government motives for doing this, that, or the other in our time are blissfully accepting of all the mendacious double talk that infects our history books.



   Conspiracy is the norm, not the exception, among powerful and influential humans now, is it not? WHAT makes you think it hasn't been the history twisting norm as long as we have been human?



   I wish historians were more open to criticism of their interpretaton(s) of history. I wish they would NOT leave stuff out just because they decided a certain event was not key.



   No, I'm not here to tell you that George Washingon's wooden false teeth were really made from Native American pelvic Indian "Ivory" (I'm kidding!) and he was a Sith Lord. It's true that walking sticks made from the femur bones of the "savages" were all the rage among the white well-to-do in our great and grand cities for over a century after the USA got started, but that's not what I want to discuss either.



   What I am about to discuss is NOT, as the walking sticks and other bits of European empathy deficit disorderd cruelty, a conspiracy theory, as many claim (but I don't).



   The events I will discuss have all been accepted by modern historians as factual. What they have not accepted is their cause and effect relationship.



   The case I wish to make is for the tremendous effects, in subsequent history from 1783 to 1825, of the Laki Volcanic Eruption.



   Natural historical events that coincide in time with human historical events are rarely given the importance they merit by the "scholars" that populate the academic institutions. Their convenient NON-interpretation of, or ignoring of, natural disasters as key causes of subsequent human historical events evidences a bias that exaggerates the power of human ideas and thought over the power of nature.



   Our behavior as individuals and as a society is strongly influenced by any natural disaster that we happen to witness due to the massive pointless suffering and death involved. We are generally stunned by such events. This the way it is for most of us.



   But for the elites of powerful, warlike countries, and conversely among the leaders of the downtrodden of said countries, natural disasters cause plans to do this or that to be postponed by the former, and conversely, accelerated by the latter.



   Since the survivors of disasters and/or the victors of wars write the history books, this cause and effect sequence rarely makes it to the flag waving masses. 

    



   

   1755 Lisbon Earthquake and Tsunami


   

   It's a side issue that I mention only briefly now, but Voltaire was deeply affected by the 1755 earthquake and tsunami which caused massive human suffering and death. He wrote some biting satire about the "Best of All Possible Worlds" did he not? TRY to find how that fits (and believe me, not the historians, it DOES!) in the historical narrative from that time period AND how that has affected human society and thinking to this day! You won't find it. Had the 1755 earthquake and tsunami not occurred, it is not a stretch to assume that no GIGANTIC society affecting satire would have been written.



   QUOTE: The earthquake and its fallout strongly influenced the intelligentsia of the European Age of Enlightenment. The noted writer-philosopher Voltaire used the earthquake in Candide and in his Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne ("Poem on the Lisbon disaster"). Voltaire's Candide attacks the notion that all is for the best in this, "the best of all possible worlds", a world closely supervised by a benevolent deity. UNQUOTE

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake



   If Voltaire wasn't an atheist before that 1755, I would wager that the huge loss of life convinced him to eschew theism. I am not defending his decision. I don't agree with it. I simply understand where he was coming from. The corrupt church in those days wasn't exactly a source of inspiration for intellectuals, or anybody else.



   As a Christian, I find it perfectly appropriate for a Just God to destroy all the churches in Lisbon, along with killing the Grand Inquisitor of the Catholic Church there, while sparing all the brothels. Lisbon's "pious" society, all of them claiming to be Christians, would gather routinely to cheer the burning at the stake of "heretics" and "those engaging in witchcraft".



   Lisbon was one of the richest cities in Europe because of it's lucrative slave trade and it's lucrative influx of gold. That gold was mined in South America. That gold was obtained by cruel forced labor exploitation of South American natives and African slaves. A portion of that gold found its way into the spectacular amounts of gold gilding in Lisbon's churches. Lisbon's churches were the envy of Europe at the time because of their copious amounts of gold gliding. The Portuguese were Empathy Deficit Disordered human predators.



   So, if God did it, why isn't He more consistent in His wrath? I don't know. However, what happened in Lisbon seems like a great example of Divine Justice visited on a particularly blatant example of egregious religious hypocrisy in the service of greed and rampant cruelty. People claiming to be Christians are, according to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, far more likely to get Da Business from God than other humans. Google ""Judgement begins in the house of God"" for details.



   But perhaps Voltaire, a product of his time, didn't see it that way. Voltaire's conclusion was that a Just God would not destroy Lisbon, so there must not be a God, period. The selective application of justice was not acceptable for God, according to Voltaire. That seems logical to me. ;D



   However, for humans like Voltaire, selective application of "Enlightenment" justice, was, though hypocritical in the extreme, quite acceptable  :P.  As you will learn in the final part of this three part article, despite his atheist "Enlightenment" rhetoric, born of the suffering he observed in Lisbon (and later in France), Voltaire did not seem to believe his  ideas applied to African slaves.



   If you think that earthquake did not change human history all the way TO THIS EMPATHY DEFICIT DISORDERED, ATHEISM DEFENDING DAY, you are wrong. But that's another, rather sore, subject.  I KNOW there are WAY TOO MANY cheerleaders for the "Enlightenment" (see Orwell) here for me to make a dent in their mechanistic reductionist, cause and effect comfort zones. The flexibility of those fine fellows in those matters is akin to that of one year old cured concrete.



   So, for the moment, forget I mentioned Voltaire and implied that the "God is Dead" fun and games that begat Darwin and Empathy Deficit Disordered profit over planet began with an earthquake in 1755.

    

   Travel with me back  in time to England in the year of our Lord 1783.

    



   

   English two-decker ship of the line


   

   Ships are, compared with today, small. Even the majestic clipper ships of the late 19th century have not been invented yet. It takes over a month to cross the Atlantic from England to the American Colonies that just successfully revolted. It cost the crown a lot of money to move a fleet with weapons and soldiers from England to the American Colonies and prosecute the, now failed, war effort, thanks to the well timed arrival of a rather impressive French fleet.



   Jamaica is still in the English fold, however. I mention it now because of the role it played in some Simon Bolivar history (mentioned in part 3 of this article). I also mention it now because, unlike the American Colonies, it continued to be exploited in order to provide commodities for the English Empire.



   As of 1783, the commodities flow coming from the American Colonies has been severely curtailed for several years and the English are not happy campers.



   England is a Maritime Empire. Testament to that is the fact that the English language is populated with sailing terms. Ships are the vessels through which the life blood of this warlike island nation flows. Ships need to know where they are when they are at sea. They navigate by compass, some pretty accurate clocks and sightings of the sun at noon and/or the 'moons of Jupiter positions' (ephemeris).



   Moving ships from here to there profitably is a matter of life and death for the British Empire. Any interruption in profitable shipping activity hurts the empire. Warships are profitable only if they can secure rebellious colonies and protect the commodities flow from the colonies and the finished goods (the English colonial "business model") to them.



   British America's most valuable exports in the early 1770s, in order of total value: sugar, tobacco, wheat, rice.



   Value of annual British imports to the North American colonies in the 1770s: nearly £885,000.



   http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/statistics.html



   Let us compare "Now" (1783) to the British national debt about 19 years ago (about ten years before the American Colonies revolted):



   British national debt in 1764: £129,586,789 (this was money that the British government borrowed from banks and investors, and it would be the equivalent of tens of trillions of dollars today).



   http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/statistics.html



   The war against the American colonies had finished only in 1782 during Rockingham's second ministry and the wars against most of the rest of Europe had been concluded by Shelburne's ministry in 1783.



   http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/pitt/taxpitt.htm



   Total British casualties from battle and disease in the Revolutionary War: around 24,000.



   http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/statistics.html



   The Rebellious American Colonies avoided the cost of sending a fleet across the Atlantic. They did a little better than the English in the war.



   Total American battle casualties in the Revolutionary War: 6,824 (estimates range between this figure and 4,435; some 90% of them came from the Continental Army).



   Total Americans wounded in the Revolutionary War: 8,445.



   Total American deaths from disease in the Revolutionary War: 10,000 (approximation).



   Total Americans who died in British prisons in the Revolutionary War: 8,500.



   Total Americans captured in the Revolutionary War: 18,152.



   http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/statistics.html



   The  British forces under Cornwallis at Yorktown had surrendered in October of 1781. In March of 1782, the British Government authorised peace negotiations.



   But before the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783  (formally ending the Revolutionary War), a very big volcanic eruption began in Iceland. The eruption immediately affected history by delaying the ratification of the treaty.



   Official ratification of the peace accord was delayed for months by a mix of political logistics and persistent bad weather. The makeshift U.S. capital in Annapolis, Maryland, was snowbound, preventing assembly of congressional delegates to ratify the treaty, while storms and ice across the Atlantic slowed communications between the two governments. At last, on May 13, 1784, Benjamin Franklin, wrangling matters in Paris, was able to send the treaty, signed by King George himself, to the Congress.



   http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i10195.pdf



    



   


   

   June 8, 1783 the Laki Eruption began. It lasted EIGHT MONTHS. It killed about 22% of the human population of Iceland and sixty percent of their grazing animals.



   The Laki eruptions had a staggering effect on Iceland itself, in large part due to the volcanic gases released in the eruption and not the lava flows themselves.



   Sulfur dioxide released by the lava flows stayed close to the ground (within 5 km) in Iceland, creating acid rains that were strong enough to burn holes in leaves, kill trees and shrubs and irritate skin.



   The eruption released 8 Mt of fluorine, so as that fluorine settled out and was incorporated into grasses, grazing livestock got fluorinosis. Sixty percent of all grazing livestock died due to the effects of the Laki eruptions. The “Haze Famine” as it is called in Iceland killed over 10,000 people (~22% of the population) from famine and disease.



   http://www.wired.com/2013/06/local-and-global-impacts-1793-laki-eruption-iceland/



   But that was only the beginning.



   Of the 122 Mt of sulfur dioxide released in the eruption, 95 Mt made it to the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, so it entered the jet stream and was circulated around the entire northern hemisphere (see right). The haze quickly reached Europe and by July 1, 1783, the haze was noticed in China.



   There are not many historical records from North America that mention the arrival of the Laki haze, but tree ring records from northern Alaska suggest that July and August 1783 were very cold. The mean temperature in northern Alaska is 11.3ºC, but the mean temperature recorded in May-August 1783 was only 7.2ºC. Russian traders in Alaska noted a population decrease in the years after the eruption while Inuit oral histories do refer to a “Summer that did not come” that could correlate with the Laki eruption as well.



   Globally, those 95 Mt of sulfuric dioxide reacted with atmospheric water to form 200 Mt of sulfuric acid aerosols. Almost 90% of that sulfuric acid was removed in the form of acid rain or fogs, while 10% stayed aloft for over a year. This might explain why northern hemisphere temperatures were 1.3ºC below normal for 2-3 years after the eruion.



   Thordarson and Self (2003) created an excellent figure to show how the sulfur aerosols were dispersed during the eruion (see below), where 80% was part of the explosive phase of the eruion and launched 10-15 km, producing distant haze across the world while 20% came directly from cooling lava flows, so it stayed close to the ground to produce the local haze in Iceland. The sulfuric acid was even damaging to crops in Europe, where noxious dews and frosts (sulfur precipitates) formed. Ash from the eruion was noted as far away as Venice, Italy and many places in between.

   http://www.wired.com/2013/06/local-and-global-impacts-1793-laki-eruion-iceland/



   Here's a graphic of the aerosol spread from the Laki Eruion:



   


   

   NOBODY outside of Iceland knew what was causing the haze which killed people, animals and crops and then made it real, real cold.



    



   The Laki Eruption effects on England


   

   "When an Icelandic volcano erupted in 1783,  many feared it was the end of the world…"



   By June 22 it was above Le Havre in Normandy, and a day later arrived in Britain.



   Reports at the time stated that the fog was so thick boats stayed in port, unable to navigate. The skies became unrecognisable, with 'the sun at noon as blank as a clouded moon, but lurid and blood- coloured at rising and setting'.



   According to an article in Gentleman's Magazine in July 1783, a visitor to Lincoln reported: 'A thick hot vapour had for several days before filled up the valley, so that both the Sun and Moon appeared like heated brick-bars.'



   Another account, by Gilbert White in his Naturalist's Journal, spoke of: 'The peculiar haze or smoky fog that prevailed in this island and even beyond its limits was a most extraordinary appearance, unlike anything known within the memory of man.'



   But it was perhaps the observations of the travelling evangelist and founder of Methodism, the Reverend John Wesley, which put the drama in its most illuminating context.



   When he visited Witney in Oxfordshire in 1783 he witnessed a combination of summer thunderstorms and thick fog which left inhabitants convinced the end of the world was nigh.



   Yet at the time, in the summer of 1783, no one knew why so many farm labourers and outdoor workers were succumbing to fever and dying. Nor could they explain the strange, nauseating fog that had descended on the island, or the peculiar pall it cast over the sun.



   In fact the deadly cloud that shrouded Britain was a toxic mix of volcanic gases and particles sweeping south from the eruptions of the Laki Craters in southern Iceland.



   The sulphur dioxide and sulphuric rain it contained was destroying the lungs of its human and animal victims. Just as devastatingly, crops withered and died leading to famine, corruption and ugly riots.

   This week we have seen the crippling effects of another volcanic eruption in Iceland. But air-traffic chaos, stranded passengers and economic fallout pale into insignificance when compared with the catastrophic events of 1783.



   The series of eruptions then – which were severe for five months and lasted eight months in total – were 100 times stronger than those we have seen this month (April 2010). They propelled 120 million tonnes of toxic gases into the atmosphere.

   Without the benefits of modern science and accurate meteorological predictions our ancestors had no comprehension of what was happening to them.



   In some parts of eastern and central England entire families of farm workers (and it was typically the rural workers who toiled each day outdoors, breathing in great lungfuls of polluted air) were virtually wiped out.



   Families lost their father figures, their breadwinners and their fit young men, as the shortage of manpower left vast swathes of produce unpicked.



   Farmers had not enough hands to gather their harvest as the sight of grown men being carried out of the field – many of whom would die where they were lain – became commonplace. Towns and villages used to burying only a handful of people each season, suddenly had to deal with four times the usual number of deaths.



   As quickly as the grave- diggers could excavate the plots, men fell to fill them. Little wonder then that many assumed the apocalypse was fast approaching.



   Describing the unrelenting thunder and lightning, he wrote that: 'Those that were asleep in the town were waked and many thought the day of judgment had come.'



   Throughout the day the panic intensified. 'Men, women and children flocked out of their houses and kneeled down together in the streets.' At Sunday service Wesley reported a full church, 'a sight never seen before'.



   Such was the mounting anxiety that many became afraid even to go to bed – convinced an earthquake or worse would befall them. Others begged their clergy to carry out exorcisms to rid the land of this evil.



   The poet William Cowper told his friend the fog was wreaking havoc. 'We never see the sun but shorn of his beams, the trees are scarce discernable at a mile's distance, he sets with the face of a hot salamander and rises with the same complexion.'



   And Gilbert White, who lived in the Hampshire village of Selborne, noted: 'There was reason for the most enlightened person to be apprehensive.' 

    

   The effects of the choking ash cloud were compounded by the abnormally hot summer, combining to frighten even the most rational of inhabitants.



   At some points the heat was so intense that butchers' meat was rendered inedible just a day after it had been killed and the flies it attracted irritated the horses, making them treacherous to ride.

   As time wore on, the masking of the sun led to a severe drop in temperature and frost and ice were reported in many places in late summer. All vegetation was affected.



   Leaves withered, crops failed, insects died in their millions, preventing the pollination of fruit and flowers. Fruit simply fell from the trees for lack of nourishment.



   Then the effect spread to animals. The first impact was on their food supply, as reported in a Cambridge newspaper. 'The grazing land, which only the day before was full of juice and had upon it the most delightful verdure, did, immediately after this uncommon event, look as if it had dried up by the sun, and was to walk on like hay.



   'The beans were turned to a whitish colour, the leaf and blade appearing as if dead.'

   At the same time sores and bare patches began appearing on the skin of the livestock. Little wonder then that this rural chaos led to disruption of food supplies and prices.



   By the autumn of 1783 shortages meant grain was being sold at 30 per cent more than its pre-fog price, sparking protests and riots.



   At Halifax market, men gathered from the surrounding weaving villages and formed into a mob to force merchants to sell their wheat and oats at the old prices.



   All across the country similar scenes were being played out, and at ports many even formed blockades to stop producers exporting grain in order to achieve higher prices.



   At the same time the fog was continuing to claim thousands of human lives. Tragically, it was often the younger and fitter members of the community as they were typically the agricultural workers who spent most of their time outdoors in the fields, breathing in the deadly particles falling from the sky.



   Recent analysis of climate detail and burial records shows eastern and central England saw their death tolls rise most. And even when the fog finally began to dissipate, the gases in the atmosphere continued to divert the sun's rays, precipitating a period of global cooling and the abnormally cold winter of 1783/4 which saw temperatures hit their lowest level for centuries.



   Mercury levels were typically two degrees celsius below the norm and Selborne in Hampshire experienced 28 continuous days of frost.



   For many, the twin catastrophes of the extremely hot then extremely cold weather coupled with the choking dry fog were attributed to God, but as this was the age of the European Enlightenment, other theories, not dependent on religion, began to emerge.



   In the days before global communication and mass media, it was several months before word of the Laki explosions filtered through to the rest of the world.



   Even with that knowledge no one could prove the connection (a feat achieved only relatively recently). Anyway, by that time the effects of the fog were beginning to decline and Britain had new worries to contend with.



   The last quarter of the 18th century was dominated by the aftermath of American Independence and the looming French Revolution. Consumed by these events, historians lost interest in the dry fog. 



   It is only now, as we once again face the cataclysmic effects of Mother Nature, that the true significance of those distant events can be put into perspective.

   • Adapted from Britain's Rottenest Years by Derek Wilson, published by Short Books, £12.99. To order a copy at £11.70 (p&p free), call 0845 155 0720.

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268405/And-thought-THIS-eruption-nasty-When-Icelandic-volcano-erupted-1783-feared-end-world-.html#ixzz3jVNLiICD



    



   Increase in Mortality in England directly caused by the Laki Eruption


   

   Through analysis of monthly burial data we have revealedthat two periods of mortality crisis occurred in Englandduring the Laki Craters eruption. The first mortality crisis peak occurred in August and September 1783, nearly two months after the start of the eruption and the first reported appearance of haze in England, and the second peak occurred in January and February 1784, with mortality re-maining above normal in the following two months. If the parish data are assumed to be representative of England as a whole, then the peaks represent ~19,700 extra deaths in the country during this period.

   http://www.academia.edu/3860865/Mortality_in_England_during_the_1783_4_Laki_Craters_eruption



   Below please find an example of historical facts that completely ignore the deleterious effects of the Laki Eruption on British coffers. Nevertheless, anybody that can add and subtract, if they compare things as they ARE in 1784 to the way they were a mere 20 years earlier (British national debt in 1764: £129,586,789), understands that England was in no position to wage war for several years to come:



   … Britain's economic condition in 1784 apparently bordered on catastrophe.



   the National Debt stood at £250 million. That was twenty times the annual revenue of £12.5 million from taxes



   the annual interest on government borrowing, which stood at about £8.3 million, automatically produced a deficit which was funded by further borrowing resulting in increased interest and an even greater deficit.



   National bankruptcy was a strong possibility.



   http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/pitt/taxpitt.htm

    



   Profound effects of eight-month eruption in 1783 caused chaos from US to Egypt,


   

   SNIPPET:



   Then, as now, there were more wide-ranging impacts. In Norway, the Netherlands, the British Isles, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, in North America and even Egypt, the Laki eruption had its consequences, as the haze of dust and sulphur particles thrown up by the volcano was carried over much of the northern hemisphere.



   


   Ships moored up in many ports, effectively fogbound. Crops were affected as the fall-out from the continuing eruption coincided with an abnormally hot summer. A clergyman, the Rev Sir John Cullum, wrote to the Royal Society that barley crops "became brown and withered … as did the leaves of the oats; the rye had the appearance of being mildewed".



   "The sun, at noon, looked as blank as a clouded moon, and shed a rust-coloured ferruginous light on the ground, and floors of rooms; but was particularly lurid and blood-coloured at rising and setting. At the same time the heat was so intense that butchers' meat could hardly be eaten on the day after it was killed; and the flies swarmed so in the lanes and hedges that they rendered the horses half frantic



   … the country people began to look with a superstitious awe, at the red, louring aspect of the sun."

   Across the Atlantic, Benjamin Franklin wrote of "a constant fog over all Europe, and a great part of North America".

   The disruption to weather patterns meant the ensuing winter was unusually harsh, with consequent spring flooding claiming more lives. In America the Mississippi reportedly froze at New Orleans.  :o



   http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/15/iceland-volcano-weather-french-revolution



   The wretched state of the British economy kept the Brits licking their wounds while the Laki Eruption caused crop failures and famines in France that served as triggers for the French Revolution in 1789. 



   As usual, the historians list all the social problems festering at the time as primary causes. I believe they contributed, but were not the primary causes. Despotism wasn't exactly a new fad in Europe, was it?  Historians also give a lot of credit to the "Enlightenment" for said Revolution. Of course, those factors are real. But without the crop failures and the famines, THAT Revolution would probably have occurred much later than 1789. 



   The Haitians took a keen interest in the French Revolution.



   Here's the "scholarly" Cliffs Notes type boilerplate for the French Revolution. NOTICE (i.e. LACK of bold font  ;)) how the lack of available food is low balled in comparison to the "Enlightenment" and the "American Revolution". LOL!



   


   

   HELLO? WHERE is the Laki Eruption that caused the crop failures that caused the famines that caused the high food prices and bread riots that were, ADMITTEDLY (by academia) a sine qua non factor in the French Revolution?



   Richard Saul Wurman knows his history. And he is not happy about how we are not taught the historical cause and effect FACTS of history in general, and the MAIN cause of the French Revolution in particular.



   He has been awarded several honorary doctorates, Graham Fellowships, a Guggenheim and numerous grants from the National Endowment for the Arts as well as the Distinguished Professor at Northeastern University. He is the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Smithsonian, Cooper-Hewitt Museum. Wurman has also been awarded the Annual Gold Medal from Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, a Gold Medal from AIGA and will receive the Boston Science Museum’s 50th Annual Bradford Washburn Award in October, 2014. He is also a Fellow of the AIA and in the Art Director’s Club Hall of Fame.



   PLEASE, take 3 minutes of your time and watch this Richard Saul Wurman  video (start at the one minute mark):

    



   The Volcano That Caused the French Revolution



   

   TED founder Richard Saul Wurman believes knowledge of history is crucial to understanding our present and future. On today's EPIPHANY Wurman shares a now obscure story about a volcano that altered the course of history.

   Conservative estimates are that 5 MILLION people died from the THREE YEAR EFFECTS (1783- 1786) of the Laki Eruption.

    



   


   21 Sept 1792 – In France, The Republic is declared, abolishing the monarchy. In January of the following year Louis XVI is beheaded.

   Upheavals in France and Saint-Domingue 1792–1796



   Ideas don't move people to Revolution if they are well fed. How is it possible that historians don't know that? Downtrodden people resist change (see long train of abuses) unless they lose all hope of a reasonable existence. Losing all hope is what famines do to people when the Empathy Deficit Disordered "Enlightened" elite that rule their country turn a blind eye to the starvation of the masses. "Enlightenment", my ass! Most of the people in France couldn't even read!



   The ones sucking up Voltaire were part of the OPPRESSOR class. They loved all his pretty words about equality and justice, as long as the rabble never read them. Yeah, the church (that pretended to be Christian, while in truth it had eschewed all Christian ethics and embraced elite cruelty) was part of that same corrupt and cruel class too. But the very definition of ethical behavior was (and is) RELATIVE for the "enlightenment". You call THAT an improvement? Yeah, most readers here do.  :(



   It really torques me that historians try to cast "Enlightenment" ideas as some sort of "hunger and thirst for justice" magic wand that produced the French Revolution.  Such stuffed shirt, idea glorifying arrogance is breathtaking! But, it is expected from insulated ivory tower types that have never missed a meal.



   Or perhaps they know better and, in order to not miss any meals and retain their tenure job security, are just toeing the lock step line dictated to them by the history "sanitizing" propagandists.



   Ashvin, a scholar and a lawyer, said the following hard truth that modern academics refuse to accept:




      Quote
   




      Secular ideologies can be abused and cause just as much harm as religious ones, and if there was ever any doubt about this fact, they should have been stripped away by the events of the 20th century.
   





       
   



    



   At any rate , for those who have their eyes open, you can SEE the results of the "Enlightenment" ALL AROUND YOU in the year 2015.  :P



   But for now, we are in Haiti in 1790. The French Revolution is a green light for the ever opportunistic English to see what they can conquer in France. France has a dictator in the wings called Napoleon, who was working his way up the ranks at the time. I'm sure he had lots of enlightened ideas about equality, fraternity and so on…



   Here's a timeline of all the "fun and games" going on back then:

   Principal Dates and Time Line of the French Revolution



   Any historian will acknowledge that the opportunistic English aggression against the French was directly connected with French weakness from the Revolution. But for some reason, they fail to make the SAME connection with the motivation of the slaves in Haiti to cast off the slavery yoke.



   The French sent some dudes down to Haiti to tell them all about equality, fraternity and so on. The slave owners were nervous about that even though, of course, they knew that equality stuff (probably) did not apply to the slaves. Nevertheless, the slave plantation owners were not amused. The Haitians were.



   Both groups thought it was happy talk propaganda. History has proven them right.



   But at the time, the slaves decided to do a little liberty, equality and fraternity of their own.  Which brings us to August 22, 1791.



    



   


   How the French Revolution triggered the Revolution in Haiti


   

   SNIPPET:



   One must emphasize the struggles that had been occurring for decades prior to the 1791 outbreak of full-scale rebellion. Yet the French Revolution was also crucially important, for the conflicts between whites about what exactly its ideals meant triggered an opportunity for blacks.

   http://scholar.library.miami.edu/slaves/san_domingo_revolution/revolution.html



   In the following video, the historical importance of the Haitian Revolution in concert with the American Revolution and French Revolution is clearly established. It is a historically accurate video about Haiti.

   Somehow Voltaire never managed to voice any defense of the Haitian Revolution. Perhaps the FACT that Haiti provided two fifths of French overseas trade had something to do with that hypocrisy by Voltaire and his "enlightened" luminaries  ;).



   Haiti was known as the Pearl of the Antilles. Haiti, little bigger than Maryland, was the richest colony in the new world, producing HALF of the word's sugar.

    




    



   


   General Toussaint Louverture


   

   February 1793 – Rebel leaders, including Toussaint Louverture, join Spanish forces to fight against the French. France declares war on England and Holland

   Agelbert NOTE: The forces of the North or the South, as referred to below, are in regard to Haitian geography.



   Early June 1793 – Louverture offers to aid French General Laveaux, Chief Commander of the republican forces in the North. Louverture offers his support and 5,000-6,000 troops in exchange for full amnesty and general emancipation. Laveaux refuses and Louverture continues to aid the Spanish for another full year.



   20 September 1793 – British troops sever ties between the North and South, isolating the provinces from each other as the Europeans, planters and rebels all fight for control. The British intend to restore order, make Saint-Domingue a British colony, and reinstate slavery.

    



   


   Benoit Joseph André Rigaud (1761 – 18 September 1811) was the leading mulatto military leader during the Haïtian Revolution. Among his protégés were Alexandre Pétion and Jean-Pierre Boyer, both future presidents of Haïti.



   

   Land ownership in Saint-Domingue was a critical issue before, during, and after the Haitian Revolution. Land ownership granted access to power and prosperity and was sought after by all of the colony’s social classes.



   During the build up to the revolution whites were increasingly threatened by the mulattoes and free blacks who were becoming powerful landowners. At the beginning of the revolution, one of the slaves’ central demands was to have small plots of land and an additional free day during the week to cultivate them. Later on, during Louverture’s reign, laborers objected to his adherence to a plantation-based economy which required blacks to work land that was not theirs.  



   Through the course of the revolution, and in the years following, former slaves felt owning land was critical in order to truly claim their freedom. To that end they fought for the colonists – and even their own leaders – for land rights, never giving up their goal to own the fields they worked in.

    



   


   

   29 August 1793 – Sonthonax issues a General Emancipation decree abolishing slavery in the North. More slaves in the colony have their freedom than ever before. Monsieur Artaud, one of the colony’s wealthiest planters with more than 1,000 slaves, tells Sonthonax that “only universal freedom could spare the whites from being totally annihilated.”



   Agelbert NOTE: The "issue" of potential annihilation is often presented in historical narratives involving the decision by European whites to agree to reforms that provide African slaves with freedom. But, as you will see, these reforms are mostly on paper.



   What you are seeing here is a precursor to a similar white reaction to freed slaves in the US in the South after the Civil war. And even before that, in the American Revolutionary war, both sides offered freedom to African slaves in return for becoming cannon fodder. As soon as the war was over, most of the promised freedoms were arrogantly discarded. It's all documented in "The Unsteady March", a truthful, hard hitting, thoroughly referenced, scholarly work on African American history from the first colonies in North America to the present.



   Returning to Haiti in 1793:



   Following decrees further restrict punishments and grant minimal pay to slaves – now called “laborers” – in the colony. Skilled laborers are legally allowed on administrative councils. However, the declarations of freedom are bound solely to theoretical property rights. Slaves are still regulated by the government, legally bound to the same plantations and masters. Their daily lives change little. In protest, many slaves go on strike, arriving to the fields late, leaving early, and doing little work. Disarmed, many former rebels turn to vagrancy as their main form of resistance. Notably, women demand that they are granted equal pay and rights as men. Under the current system women are held to the same rules and punishments but paid only two thirds of men's wages.

   Upheavals in France and Saint-Domingue 1792–1796

   CLEARLY, the African-Haitians wanted exactly the same things that American and French Revolutionaries wanted. African-Haitians were not stupid, backward or unable to grasp. or take responsibility for, Liberty. Even the women were far more progressive than American, English or French women of that time period!



   The Haitians, despite a brief period of working with France against the British and Spanish, decided to get rid of the "liberty, equality, fraternity " rhetoric spouting French once and for all. WHY? Because the Haitians discovered that the French had no intention of treating African-Haitians as anything but commodities to exploit, PERIOD.



   For those who don't get that, a cursory look at  all the post French Revolution rhetoric coming from France (i.e. proclamations and laws about this, that and the other in regard to ending slavery and codifying freedom for the Haitian blacks) will reveal that Napoleon reversed ALL of it in short order.



   The Haitians got the message. They sent their own message to the French troops. This was VERY expensive for France. Over fifty Thousand French soldiers had died by 1803. France, with its new emperor Napoleon, had tried to reinstate slavery. France lost many soldiers, ships and stopped getting sugar from the Pearl of the Antilles.

   Casualty Facts Haitian Revolution



   Napoleon needed money to keep his war machine up to snuff. As you know, he had plans for expanding his "empire" to the east, as well as war with England. He had a racist friend in the USA (always happy to do anything he could to give England a hard time) named Thomas Jefferson who helped him get it.  It was called the Louisiana Purchase.



   The back story to the Louisiana Purchase, not taught to most Americans, is that France only got "title" to that massive amount of land from Spain in 1800!



   On October 1, 1800, Spain ceded the Louisiana Territory to France in the Treaty of San Ildefonso. The territory was equal in size to the entire United States at the time. Napoleon Bonaparte envisioned a Caribbean empire, with the Louisiana Territory providing the resources to support the center of the empire on the island of Santo Domingo (now Haiti). At the time the Treaty of San Ildefonso was signed, Santo Domingo was controlled by former slaves, under Toussaint L'Ouverture, who had driven their masters from the island. Napoleon dispatched the French army to regain control of the island, but the islanders met the troops with fierce resistance. Faced with this resistance, and many troops suffering from yellow fever, the French retreated in defeat. Napoleon gave up on his plan for a Caribbean empire.



   By 1802, France had still not taken control of the Louisiana Territory, leaving it in the hands of the Spanish despite the fact that the land belonged to France. In October 1802, the Spanish colonial administrator in New Orleans prohibited American crops from being deposited at the port of New Orleans before being shipped to other nations. This severely constricted US commerce in the southwest, and many Americans believed, incorrectly, that the order had actually come from Napoleon. Fears of French control of the Louisiana Territory, and especially of New Orleans, loomed large. Jefferson began efforts to ingratiate himself to the British in preparation for enlisting their aid against the French. 



   Jefferson sent James Monroe and Robert Livingston to France with the intention of negotiating the purchase of the port of New Orleans, in an attempt to end, at long last, American difficulties there.

   He also instructed them to negotiate the purchase, if possible, of as much of Florida as possible. However, the envoy found Napoleon had given up on his plan for a Caribbean empire in order to focus on the war in Europe.

   http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/firstyears/section6.rhtml



   Agelbert NOTE: You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand why no French defeat in Haiti would have meant no Louisiana Purchase!



   Napoleon figured if he could get a quick influx of money from a deal with the United States, he could curry some favor with his own people as he geared up for more war with  England. The $15 million deal was broken down as such:



   The French received $2 million cash up front.



   France received 60 million francs ($11.25 million) over the 20-year loan.



   The French debt of 20 million francs ($3.75 million) to the United States was forgiven.

   http://history.howstuffworks.com/revolutionary-war/louisiana-purchase2.htm



   Napoleon was also already slugging it out with England when the Haitians kicked the French out.



   1801 Battle of Aboukir 8 March – British-Turkish army under Sir Ralph Abernathy defeats French Army of Egypt under Jacques de Menou



   1801 First Battle of Algeciras 6 July – English naval defeat by French



   1802 Battle of Delhi 11 September – British forces under Gerard Lake defeat Maratha forces led by French officer Louis Bourquin Battle of Assaye



   1802 18 November – Haitians defeat French in last battle of war of independence



   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_1801%E2%80%931900



   The Englsh had gradually bounced back from the dark days in 1783 to a robust economy that could finance predatory capitalist wars.

    

   Pitt the Younger became PM in December 1783 at the age of 22. The effects of Pitt's economic policies were a substantial increase in Britain's trade and an upturn in the economy. Confidence was restored in the £.  Worries, especially over the National Debt, ended and more people were prepared and able to lend to Government at guaranteed rates of interest.



   Anglo-American trade quadrupled, providing an example of the effectiveness of free trade.

   Pitt rebuilt the financial foundations of Britain, which later enabled him to subsidise European armies to fight France in the French wars.



   As 1804 begins, Thomas Jefferson, having digested the news of the French defeat in Haiti, is in a panic (and high dungeon) over the very idea that African slaves are running their own country. ALL the despotic colonial powers were in full agreement to DO what they DO to "uppity" Africans. That is, if it was too hard to defeat them in combat, then white=civilized countries would agree to not give them loans of any sort, allow their ships to engage in commerce with "civilized" nations or buy their export commodities.  It is right and proper for "civilized" folks to treat "uncivilized" blacks in an uncivilized manner, right? Ah, the smell of Orwellian enlightenment in 1803.



   Not much changed for well over a century. And when it did change, it was when American military forces INVADED Haiti and set up a puppet government to start the predatory capitalist "business model" shafting the Haitians all over again. Whitey just loves to have fun, don't he? THAT is why Haiti has not done better.

    

   When France finally recognized Haiti in 1825, something Haiti sorely needed to trade internationally, the massive "reparations" Haiti was forced to pay kept the nation without working capital to improve its infrastructure and economy for OVER a century. The "debt" (with lots of usurious interest, of course) was not paid of until 1947! French Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and the "Enlightenment"? I don't think so. Hypocrisy and empty rhetoric is more like it.



   But l digress. The English took note of the Louisiana Purchase. Tell me, dear readers, how do you think the English received the news that the "traitor" Jefferson was helping Napoleon spruce up his war machine? Napoleon wasn't going to use that money for spreading Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, was he?



   I do believe the English Maritime Empire, now with a healthy economy, was thinking that:



   1) France was weakened BY THE LOSS OF HAITI.



   2) The Rebellious American Colonies were giving money to an enemy of England.



   3) Said American Colonies could still count on French help as long as Napoleon was a threat to England.



   4) When, not if, France was eliminated as a threat to England, the Rebellious American Colonies were in line for a good thrashing (and good, properly dictated, trade deals!).



   SO, the British Empire, in 1803, continued to kick French ass whenever and wherever they could. The Americans would be dealt with by English maritime "policies" until France was out of the picture. Then a military visit  to the American Colonies would be in order.

    



   


   1803 British war song against the French


   

   The amazing amount of hero worshipping glorification of Thomas Jefferson's OBVIOUS unconstitutional embrace of the Louisiana Purchase by historians is breathtaking, if not downright Orwellian.

    

   They go to great lengths to call Jefferson a "strict constructionist" (because of all his high flying Constitutional rhetoric, still liberally quoted to this day). They want us to picture him as being involved in soul searching and hand wringing about whether to make the deal with Napoleon or not. They say he considered "making it legal"  by getting an Amendment to the Constitution passed that would authorize the purchase of FOREIGN lands.



   He didn't need to bother. The US Congress, despite some hemming and hawing from Federalists, went for the Louisiana Purchase like bees to honey.



   As usual in the USA, when expansion is in play, the Constitution is just a piece of paper to be amended at oligarchic will. The historians are then tasked with burying all the bodies and providing sainthood for the oligarchs. So it is with Jefferson. The historians even try to portray Jefferson as a big enemy of Napoleon. That too is Orwellian. Jefferson admired, then feared Napoleon.   



   An objective analysis of history at that time shows that Jefferson's concern for English agression against the USA was his main worry. Historians today try to paint Jefferson as trying to "ingratiate" the USA with England. That is simply NOT TRUE. Jefferson understood England quite well. He KNEW they would be back to the the US mainland in high dungeon as soon as they could. The Brits, especially from the Revolution on up to 1806, were NOT the forgiving sort.



   The American Revolution, followed by the Laki Eruption, almost destroyed England. Were in the hell do historians get the idea that the Brits were not extremely angry with the Rebellious Colonies all the way up to the War of 1812 and a few decades after? 



   Moving right along, we now arrive at 1806. Napoleon rattles his saber at England.



   A chain of cause and effect events, begun by the Laki Eruption, followed by the French Revolution, followed by the Revolution in Haiti, followed by the French defeat in Haiti, followed by Napoleon's new plan to focus on Europe instead of the Caribbean, followed by the Louisiana purchase, followed by Napoleon getting funds to build up his war machine, now brings about the conditions for the War of 1812.

     

   In 1806 France prohibited all neutral trade with Great Britain and in 1807 Great Britain banned trade between France, her allies, and the Americas. The US Congress passed an embargo act in 1807 in retaliation, prohibiting U.S. vessels from trading with European nations, and later the Non-Intercourse Acts, aimed solely at France and Britain.



   The embargo and non-intercourse act proved ineffective and in 1810 the United States reopened trade with France and Great Britain provided they ceased their blockades against neutral trading.



   Great Britain continued to stop American merchant ships to search for Royal Navy deserters, to impress American seamen on the high seas into the Royal Navy, and to enforce its blockade of neutral commerce. Madison made the issue of impressment from ships under the American flag a matter of national sovereignty—even after the British agreed to end the practice   —and asked Congress for a declaration of War on Great Britain on June 1, 1812. Many who supported the call to arms saw British and Spanish territory in North America as potential prizes to be won by battle or negotiations after a successful war.



   Pro-British Federalists in Washington were outraged by what they considered Republican favoritism toward France. The leading Republican, Thomas Jefferson responded, that “the English being equally tyrannical at sea as he [Napoleon] is on land, and that tyranny bearing on us in every point of either honor or interest, I say ‘down with England.’”



   The United States declared the war on Britain.

   

11
The Kitchen Sink / My Cousin, The Movie Star With a Consciense
« on: February 20, 2015, 09:08:15 PM »
My Cousin, The Movie Star With a Conscience.

He acted with Meryl Streep, Elizabeth Taylor, Harrison Ford and other top movie stars. He began in theater and went on to movies later in life.

I will talk about the stuff not published. Raulito, as he was called in the family, was a very intelligent and talented man. He could sing beautifully and he could leave rolling on the floor with his jokes. They guy was an absolute riot to be around.

Quote
I remember I was like five or six years old; I played the devil. That was my first role.

But above and beyond that, he had a heart for the poor and downtrodden in this world. He never ceased to do whatever he could to help them. But first he had to overcome the obstacles placed in his path to stardom.

The first obstacle was his parents. My old man was really tight with his old man (they were first cousins). They both had a super macho outlook on life, liked to clown around at parties, had talent for singing, playing the guitar ( my father) and telling great jokes (Raulito's father).

They were both womanizers while being strict disciplinarians with their children (quite common in Spanish culture). His old man married a rich girl (only 15 at the time!) so he was basically set for life. His wife was a devout Catholic church goer like my mother.

That made my mom and his mom great friends too. They were both stoic ladies that looked the other way while their "childish" husbands fooled around. Raulito was several years older than me and I grew up mostly in the states side so I didn't get to know him until I was around 15 when the first tragedy in Raulito's life occurred.

At the time, his mom wanted him to be a priest and his dad wanted him to be a lawyer. Raulito tried the seminary but dropped out, to his mother's chagrin. He was faced with the alternative of becoming a lawyer. Being a top student, he could have become whatever he wanted, but he wanted to be an actor.

His parents were not having THAT! It's okay to express talent in singing, dancing, telling jokes and general enetertainment purposes at parties, but upper crust Spanish society frowns on the acting profession as one for low life morality free bohemians. The upper crust does all THEIR morality free stuff out of the public view, you see. It's a scandal to have a serious boy "doing stuff" in the theater or movies. So there! 

But the excesses of Raulito's dad were creating great stresses for his mom. She was very straight laced and Raulito's dad, unlike my dad, was too damned indiscrete about his philandering.

Then Rafaelito, Raulito's young brother about my age, was killed in a car accident.  The driver and front seat passenger survived unscathed. The driver was speeding on the, just inaugurated, new expressway and lost control of the car. It slide sideways into a concrete base light pole which split the car in two. The two rear passengers were killed instantly. Rafaelito was one of them.

His parents received a life insurance payment of around $20,000. Raulito's dad (Raul) chartered a mediterranian cruise on a sailboat with an all woman crew for a month or so for about $15,000 (1962 approximate time) to "get over his grief".  He left his wife, two daughters and Raulito in Puerto Rico to get over their grief in church. WTF!!?

I am 100% certain that Raulito, who was very close with his mom and loved Rafaelito dearly, was not pleased. Raulito then made the decison to discard the desires of his old man (that Raulito study law) and decided to become an actor, even if he might go hungry doing it.

Quote
Instead of acting in court, I decided to act onstage.
  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:

There is something else you should know that never made the papers. Raulito's first fiance was also killed in a car accident within a year or so of his bother's death {head on collision by drunk driver). I never met her or his first wife. I met his second wife in 1987.

So, when Raulito began his acting career, he was already quite familiar with strong emotional pain. He was a method actor. If he was going to play a lawyer, he would study law. If he was going to play a hair stylist, he would work in a hair salon for a while. That's the way method actors prepare for roles. I don't know if his tragic experiences influenced him to become a method actor or not but I'm certain they indirectly helped him in his profession, in addition to making him a stronger person in the face of adversity.

Quote
We tend to think of meditation in only one way. But life itself is a meditation.

He got his (very slow) start in theater in New York City. It turns out he had done the math on the high probability of having absolutely no problems with weight gain as an actor.  ;D

Hunger was his constant companion for about a decade. He told me face to face how that went many years later (1986). I said, "You sure had a lot of guts to do that. I don't think I could have.". He just smiled and said it worked out and he would have rather died than do anything else so he just kept at it. Here's a famous quote of his about his life as a struggling theater actor:

Quote
Sometimes we used to eat once a day... chicken backs. You could buy four chicken backs for a quarter.

But he knew acting was his true vocation.

Quote
Thank God for the theater.

Quote
I knew there was something special about the theater for me something beyond the regular reality, something that I could get into and transcend and become something other than myself.

Thanks to a good (and influential) man in the USA, he managed to avoid a lot of the stereotype latino 'dumb guy' or 'low life crook' roles that are the typical Hollywood fare for minorities. Those of us who KNOW HOW IT WORKS in the USA, understand why this is done (i.e. to give most Americans the wrong idea about intelligence and ability in minorities  :evil4:). We understand that is quite deliberate. Raulito knew the score. He wasn't going to help propagandize whitey for money. Of course that made it quite a bit more difficult to make money for long time.

When he finally did hit the big time, he used his celebrity in the service of the downtrodden.

Quote
Just the fact that I've lived more, and I'm not concerned about when I am going to get my next job anymore. This business is free-lance and it's not a steady job. Younger, I would have been more preoccupied with myself.

It was a very profound experience, getting in touch with that part of us, in all of us human beings, that is committed beyond yourself to the point of giving everything you have, including your life, for other people, for your fellow man.

There are 38,000 people dying of hunger each day and most are children. And, being a celebrity, I communicate about it as much as I can.
  :emthup: :emthup: :emthup:

When he played a Catholic Bishop that was assassinated, his mom (and mine) were ecstatic! His mom got to see her boy dressed as priest! By that time she had long been (SORT OF - see Catholic style legal separation with a promise to not remarry - she kept it) ) divorced from his dad although she would never remarry due to her Catholic religion.

Raulito put his heart and soul into that role. When he is ranting in the movie, it reminded me of hearing  my dad (or his dad) go on a tirade of righteous indignation (but my dad and his really had no grounds to do so - they were good actors too! ).

The movie was banned in El Salvador because it told the TRUTH about how Predatory Capitalism "does what it does" there. Raulito was dead serious in agreeing with what his character's role was saying. It was an  easy role for him to method act into because he shared the same ideals.

Quote
I have a very deep care for Latin America, and, of course, for what was going on in El Salvador.

His dad died in a car accident while in a drunken stupor in the late 1980's. I went to see him in the hospital. He was brain dead. They pulled the plug on him after a week or so. The guy just could not stop the heavy drinking and womanizing. So it goes. :(

But don't get the idea that Raulito was this morose, serious ranting type (like me!). This guy could make a joke out of ANYTHING! That look of his when he puts on that sly smile and looks to the one side like a naughty boy enjoying an inside joke is a TRADEMARK inside our family!  ;)  We all do it!

But of course, he did it better (pictures at the end of the article will illustrate "the look"  :evil4:). 

Quote
You have to have the right atmosphere, really be in the right mood to really fully enjoy a Cohiba.

A cigar is as good as memories that you have when you smoked it.

Maybe it's like becoming one with the cigar. You lose yourself in it; everything fades away: your worries, your problems, your thoughts. They fade into the smoke, and the cigar and you are at peace.

Why pay $100 on a therapy session when you can spend $25 on a cigar? Whatever it is will come back; so what, smoke another one.

I even smoke in bed. Imagine smoking a cigar in bed, reading a book. Next to your bed, there's a cigar table with a special cigar ashtray, and your wife is reading a book on how to save the environment...


Don't get the wrong idea from his joking. He was quite militant about protecting the environment.   

Raulito became a multimillionaire movie star.

With his fame he was able to pick roles that defended the downtrodden and the environment.


I am certain he pissed off quite a few murderers in the service of profit over people and planet.  :emthup:  ;D

When he was doing "Kiss of the Spider Woman", he had to get skinny as a rail for his part in prison. He also had to kiss a man.  :P Around that time (1987) his second wife had their second child. He gave a party at the Berwind Country Club in Puerto Rico for the family. I guess it was a kind of a "home town boy makes good" thing. He and his wife showed off the new baby boy that was about six months old.

As is the habit of menfolk worldwide, later on, and with a few drinks in us, we gathered around him at the private bar in the area he had rented for the party. I asked him what was it like to work with Liz Taylor and Richard Burton a long time ago. He said they are quite different off screen and were quite friendly with him throughout the filming. They treated and respected him as a colleague.  :emthup:

Then one of my cousins (A.A.) looked at him rather crossly and said, Raulito, what's this business of kissing an HOMBRE? Raulito said, "It's just acting. It was part of the role".  A.A. pondered that a few seconds, ran his hand over his head and said, "Well, then I guess it's okay, but I sure wouldn't do it!". Everybody laughed and Raulito lifted his eyebrows and gave "the look". Then we really roared!

My brother Larry, always interested in the money angle, commented to Raulito that it must be great to be rolling in the green with all that movie money and asked him what his living expenses were. Raulito quoted a figure that amounted to several hundred thousand a year. Larry asked, "How come so much?". Raulito said he supported several movements for people and the environment that were quite costly.

He added that his lifestyle also required very expensive hotels when travelling or vacationing to keep from getting mobbed. He had to support a team of handlers that took care of fan mail, security, threats, scheduling and, of course, his agent. It goes with the territory of fame.

The last time I spoke to him was in January of 1990. He called the funeral parlor where my mother's body was being viewed and I happened to answer the phone.

I realized then what a hassle it was to be him on certain occasions when my "daughter" and one my nieces rushed to the phone when they realized Raulito was on the phone. They were begging me to ask him to send them an autographed picture. Such lack of decorum. It was their grandmother's funeral and my mother's funeral. So it goes.

I apologized to him and passed on the request. He said, no problem and not to worry about it. He would send the pictures to Sophia and Renee. I thanked him for the condolences, promised to pass them on to the others and we said goodbye.

A funny guy with a huge heart that I will always remember.


His name is Raul Juliá. The last name is NOT pronounced Júlia (like Julie). The accent goes on the last letter. 


Raul Juliá quotes source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/rauljulia320711.html

Biography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%BAl_Juli%C3%A1

He could play a good guy as well as a bad guy and do great comedy (Movie pictures below). 





Obit with a tribute


THE LOOK    



The Adams Family Character





THE LOOK    















Bishop Oscar Romero played by Raulito

Quote

It was a very profound experience, getting in touch with that part of us, in all of us human beings, that is committed beyond yourself to the point of giving everything you have, including your life, for other people, for your fellow man.  Raul Juliá Arcelay


12
The Kitchen Sink / UFOs & Govt. the Smoking Gun Evidence
« on: January 30, 2015, 01:09:54 PM »
UFOs & Govt. the Smoking Gun Evidence  :o

Published on Nov 24, 2013

A look at what the governments of the United States, England, and Belgium could know about the existence of UFOs, and studies what some say is smoking gun evidence of a web of secrecy.

UFO conspiracy theory argues that evidence of unidentified flying objects and extraterrestrial visitors is being suppressed by various governments around the world.

According to David Morrison, fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, such theories are backed by little or no evidence.

However, many well-credentialed people claim that there is an overarching cover-up of the subject by the U.S. Government. Former Senator Mike Gravel, claims that the White House is suppressing, ignoring and/or marginalizing evidence. Many generals, pilots, and government officials who have gone on record to state the same thing.

Conspiracy believers commonly argue that Earth governments, especially the Government of the United States, are in communication and/or cooperation with extraterrestrials despite public claims to the contrary, and further that some of these theories claim that the governments are explicitly allowing alien abduction. British researchers have found some evidence of suppression of UFO incidents by governments during the Cold War but have found no evidence of it having a conspiratorial nature. The motive is attributed to the governments' desire to avoid admitting that they could not explain the UFO phenomenon and its associated hysteria.

Some civilians suggest that they have been abducted, some among them saying that they were also subjected to extensive physical examinations and others adding that tissue samples including sperm and ova were taken from them. The contention that there is a widespread cover-up of UFO information is not limited to the general public or the UFO research community. For example, a 1971 survey of Industrial Research/Development magazine found that 76% of those participating in the survey felt the government was not revealing all it knew about UFOs, 54% thought UFOs definitely or probably existed, and 32% thought UFOs came from outer space.

Notable persons to have publicly stated that UFO evidence is being suppressed include Senator Barry Goldwater, Admiral Lord Hill-Norton (former NATO head and chief of the British Defence Staff), Brigadier General Arthur Exon (former commanding officer of Wright-Patterson AFB), Vice Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter (first CIA director), astronauts Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell, former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer, and the 1999 French COMETA report by various French generals and aerospace experts..


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/TNoiiAAIzas&amp;x-yt-ts=1422579428#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/TNoiiAAIzas&amp;x-yt-ts=1422579428#&fs=1</a>

And BY THE WAY, the "Belgian Wave" discussed in the above video was precisely when I saw some UFOs (in Puerto Rico!) that I have reported on here (April 9, 1990).  They must have done the grand tour of the planet of the naked killer apes and wanted to take in some Caribbean fun while they were at it. :o  :icon_mrgreen:

The following true story was published here September 19, 2012

I was in a parking lot overlooking a city watching the moon rise at about 9:00 P.M. There were about 20 other people there listening to their radios and drinking beer. I wasn't drinking. I saw this weird cloud about 5 miles away boiling like a tornado cell. It seemed to be backlit (not by moonlight) but there was no sound of thunder from cloud internal lightning. People started saying "look at that and ooooh and aaaah".
parking lot light balls
parking lot light balls

This went on for about 5 minutes and two lights shot out of the cloud at least 1,000 mph (I'm a pilot and atc at this time so I had a very good grasp of distances and speeds). One was red and one was blue. The red one headed north (I was facing east towards the cloud and the moon) and the blue one headed south for a mile or so and did a hair pin turn and caught up to the red one headed north. They grew brighter and whiter and disappeared.

It all happened in less than a minute after they shot out of the cloud. I was smoking a cigarette and was amazed at this "whatever" display of acrobatics and speed.

I heard a muffled pop like when you pop a paper bag. I looked left and I saw the first light ball. Then POP, POP. Two more appeared out of nowhere right before my eyes (no doubt some kind of interdimensional movement similar to what you mentioned and what occurs constantly in the electron clouds around an atomic nucleus).

I just stared at these majestic looking things that reminded me of a Dandelion seed Ball with clear Lucite rods sticking out. They where white and translucent, not yellow as portrayed. The center was compact. They floated south a few feet from me rotating lightly (the lateral rods were near stationary while the most forward and rear rods appeared to roll clockwise through the air two feet or so from the asphalt (the rate of roll did not coincide to the asphalt below like tire movement does). The asphalt was lit up by these things as they passed by. It took no more than a couple of minutes. Think of a feather floating in a whisper of a breeze.

Then the lead one Popped and disappeared, followed in sequence by the other two. I caught a flash of light entering the cloud miles away and then the cloud stopped boiling and assumed a typical cloud appearance. I was sorry I hadn't tried to touch one.

I didn't know anyone there so I didn't talk to anyone but people appeared pretty dumbfounded. I left a few minutes later. I've never made heads or tails of this experience. If the balls ARE energy creatures, they must have had a good time but made no effort to communicate. If they are vehicles, whatever pilots them is no bigger than a rabbit. Whatever they are, I do not think they are from Earth. It appears that there are some ETs out there that aren't shaped like us and prefer the sea urchin star shape.


13
The Kitchen Sink / The Transitional Fossils Problem
« on: January 17, 2015, 03:49:18 PM »


The transitional fossils problem

Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:


Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.1

Is it any different today?

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:

I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.2


The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.3

And:

I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.4


As Sunderland points out:

It of course would be no puzzle at all if he [Gould] had not decided before he examined the evidence that common-ancestry evolution was a fact, ‘like apples falling from a tree,’ and that we can only permit ourselves to discuss possible mechanisms to explain that assumed fact.5


The gaps are huge

Teaching about Evolution avoids discussing the vast gulf between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man evolution is without foundation.

There are many other examples of different organisms appearing abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. For example, the first bats, pterosaurs, and birds were fully fledged flyers.  

Turtles are a well designed and specialized group of reptiles, with a distinctive shell protecting the body’s vital organs. However, evolutionists admit ‘Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.’ They can’t plead an incomplete fossil record because ‘turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates.’6 The ‘oldest known sea turtle’ was a fully formed turtle, not at all transitional.   It had a fully developed system for excreting salt, without which a marine reptile would quickly dehydrate. This is shown by skull cavities which would have held large salt-excreting glands around the eyes.7

All 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in 1944:


The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.8


There is little to overturn that today.9

Excuses

Like most evolutionary propaganda, Teaching about Evolution makes assertions that there are many transitional forms, and gives a few ‘examples.’ An article in Refuting Evolution contains the gleeful article by the evolutionist (and atheist) E.O. Wilson, ‘Discovery of a Missing Link.’ He claimed to have studied ‘nearly exact intermediates between solitary wasps and the highly social modern ants.’ But another atheistic evolutionist, W.B. Provine, says that Wilson’s ‘assertions are explicitly denied by the text … . Wilson’s comments are misleading at best.’10

Teaching about Evolution emphasizes Archaeopteryx and an alleged land mammal-to-whale transition series, so they are covered in chapters 4 and 5 of Refuting Evolution. Teaching about Evolution also makes the following excuse on page 57:

Some changes in populations might occur too rapidly to leave many transitional fossils. 

Also, many organisms were very unlikely to leave fossils because of their habitats or because they had no body parts that could easily be fossilized. 


Darwin also excused the lack of transitional fossils by ‘the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.’ But as we have seen, even organisms that leave excellent fossils, like turtles, are lacking in intermediates. Michael Denton points out that 97.7 percent of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1 percent of living families of land vertebrates—87.8 percent if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized.11

It’s true that fossilization requires specific conditions. Normally, when a fish dies, it floats to the top and rots and is eaten by scavengers. Even if some parts reach the bottom, the scavengers take care of them. Scuba divers don’t find the sea floor covered with dead animals being slowly fossilized. The same applies to land animals. Millions of buffaloes (bison) were killed in North America last century, but there are very few fossils.

In nature, a well-preserved fossil generally requires rapid burial (so scavengers don’t obliterate the carcass), and cementing agents to harden the fossil quickly. Teaching about Evolution has some good photos of a fossil fish with well-preserved features (p. 3) and a jellyfish (p. 36). Such fossils certainly could not have formed gradually—how long do dead jellyfish normally retain their features? If you wanted to form such fossils, the best way might be to dump a load of concrete on top of the creature! Only catastrophic conditions can explain most fossils—for example, a global flood and its aftermath of widespread regional catastrophism. (see topic: Evidence for a Global Flood )

Teaching about Evolution goes on to assert after the previous quote:

However, in many cases, such as between primitive fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and reptiles and birds, there are excellent transitional fossils.


But Teaching about Evolution provides no evidence for this! We can briefly examine some of the usual evolutionary claims below (for reptile-to-bird, see the next chapter on birds):

Fish to amphibian: Some evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was believed that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. This speculation seemed impossible to disprove, since according to evolutionary/long-age interpretations of the fossil record, the last coelacanth lived about 70 million years ago. But a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938. And it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Its soft parts were also totally fish-like, not transitional. It also has some unique features—it gives birth to live young after about a year’s gestation, it has a small second tail to help its swimming, and a gland that detects electrical signals.12 The earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega (mentioned on p. 39 of Teaching about Evolution), is hardly transitional, but has fully formed legs and shoulder and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the Rhipidistians.


Amphibian to reptile: Seymouria is a commonly touted intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. But this creature is dated (by evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years ago, about 30 million years younger than the ‘earliest’ true reptiles Hylonomus and Paleothyris. That is, reptiles are allegedly millions of years older than their alleged ancestors! Also, there is no good reason for thinking it was not completely amphibian in its reproduction. The jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number of new structures and a change in biochemistry—see the section below on soft part changes.


Reptile to mammal: The ‘mammal-like reptiles’ are commonly asserted to be transitional. But according to a specialist on these creatures:


Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species.13

Evolutionists believe that the earbones of mammals evolved from some jawbones of reptiles. But Patterson recognized that there was no clear-cut connection between the jawbones of ‘mammal-like reptiles’ and the earbones of mammals. In fact, evolutionists have argued about which bones relate to which.14


The function of possible intermediates

The inability to imagine functional intermediates is a real problem. If a bat or bird evolved from a land animal, the transitional forms would have forelimbs that were neither good legs nor good wings. So how would such things be selected? The fragile long limbs of hypothetical halfway stages of bats and pterosaurs would seem more like a hindrance than a help.

Soft part changes

Of course, the soft parts of many creatures would also have needed to change drastically, and there is little chance of preserving them in the fossil record. For example, the development of the amniotic egg would have required many different innovations, including:

The shell.


The two new membranes—the amnion and allantois.


Excretion of water-insoluble uric acid rather than urea (urea would poison the embryo).


Albumen together with a special acid to yield its water.


Yolk for food.


A change in the genital system allowing the fertilization of the egg before the shell hardens.15


Another example is the mammals—they have many soft-part differences from reptiles, for example:

Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood cells without nuclei, a heart with four chambers instead of three and one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally different system of blood supply to the eye.


Mammals produce milk, to feed their young.


Mammalian skin has two extra layers, hair and sweat glands.


Mammals have a diaphragm, a fibrous, muscular partition between the thorax and abdomen, which is vital for breathing. Reptiles breathe in a different way.


Mammals keep their body temperature constant (warm-bloodedness), requiring a complex temperature control mechanism.


The mammalian ear has the complex organ of Corti, absent from all reptile ears.16


Mammalian kidneys have a ‘very high ultrafiltration rate of the blood.’ This means the heart must be able to produce the required high blood pressure. Mammalian kidneys excrete urea instead of uric acid, which requires different chemistry. They are also finely regulated to maintain constant levels of substances in the blood, which requires a complex endocrine system.19


by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
The transitional fossils problem


Index fossils—really?

Index, noun; a pointer, indicator, a thing that points out. (Webster’s Dictionary)

by Gordon Howard

Snippet 1:
They are not indicators of an evolutionary progression, and they cannot be relied on without question as indicators of the age of any particular rock layer.

Snippet 2:

Evolutionary paleontologists use ‘index fossils’ to assign an age to a layer of sedimentary rock and its associated fossils.

Evolutionary theory assumes that a particular creature evolved from its ancestors, lived successfully for a period, then became extinct as its descendants evolved better ways of surviving. In other words, that creature had a defined ‘evolutionary life-span’. We may be told, “It thrived in the Devonian period”. For example, we all ‘know’ that the dinosaurs ‘evolved’ about 230 million years ago, and died out 65 million years ago, don’t we?

Or do we?

Index fossils—really?

Agelbert NOTE: Please do not bring the following OFF TOPIC argument (see graphic below) to this discussion. As an ignorant, propagandized Homo SAP, prior to actually studying college level biology, that is what I believed. It was a BELIEF, nothing more. This is NOT about BELIEFS. This is NOT about GOD ; it's about transitional fossils.

I DID NOT put this in the "Spirituality and Mysticism" category  ;D. If you want to talk about GOD or whether ET Panspermed (seeded) the Earth with Intelligent Designed one size fits all DNA packages, please start a topic there.  :evil4:

THIS THREAD is about PROOF or the LACK OF IT for the premise that:

the FOSSIL RECORD supports SET (Standard Evolutionary Theory)   .


If you have PROOF, present it. I will peruse the literature presented objectively. OR you can pretend you've got it all figured out and don't need to waste time arguing such a "settled" issue.

... "Settled" Science of Darwinian Theory, ..."

 

14
Attorney Stephen Downs: Inventing Terrorists – The Lawfare of Preemptive Prosecution

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Tr3FJtR1Azo#&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Tr3FJtR1Azo#&fs=1</a>

http://www.civilfreedoms.org/?p=16209

15
Diner Newz & Multimedia / A taste for blood
« on: September 14, 2014, 09:06:02 PM »
A taste for blood

From time to time, the world’s news media report occurrences of carnivorous animals exhibiting herbivorous and/or non-violent behaviour. Similarly, normally herbivorous creatures sometimes exhibit unusual carnivorous traits. Following are two accounts of creatures known as herbivores which have developed a taste for blood.

Killer Panda (1992)

China’s Sichuan province is home to the world’s last remaining wild pandas, generally vegetarian. Puzzled researchers were amazed when a panda killed and ate 26 goats before being captured and studied.

Bird-killing Sheep (2002)

A British researcher observed a sheep eating a bird. In behaviour more associated with carnivores, the sheep snatched the unwary grouse in scrubland and proceeded to devour it.  :o

http://creation.com/Air-attack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5