Revolutions Coincide With Tyranny

Revolutions usually do not happen during the brief periods of peace that societies may have. Revolutions are almost always violent more than peaceful, because they occur during oppressive tyrannies that use violence against citizens, not just foreign enemies. If revolutions occur during a time of peace, that is more accurately called a coup because a minority militant party (often funded by an empire) is going against the will of the people to take control of power. There can be some popular support for military coups, but real revolution usually means ‘social and political change by the people’. Whether a revolution is successful, or how successful they are in hind-sight to solve problems, is highly debatable.

The uncomfortable problem of revolutionary change is when protests are turned into riots by militant crack-downs. The conservative ruling class will side with their own authority of course, and many servants will support them. However, there would be no American Revolution without the ‘Boston Massacre’ and civilians taking up arms in response to taxes and soldiers being forced into their homes. As tyranny increases eventually ‘the peasant masses’ aka ‘working class labor’ goes revolutionary populist, regardless of what side of the aisle they identify as before change happens; and afterwards the label lines are redrawn as society evolves.

Right-wing [currently includes Corporate Centrists] conservative authorities will defend the existing system by claiming that militant force is always needed to enforce laws and stop mobs from rioting which includes vandalism and looting public and private properties. Left-wing [currently includes libertarian anarchists] liberal revolutionaries will tend to excuse rioting as reaction to serious problems like ongoing epidemics, social inequality, economic desperation, and military force. These political labels are superficial as they are applied colloquially and their definitions change as society evolves. There will also always be the semantic problem of labels regarding the application of theories by authorities. This is how the meaning of a label can mean opposite ideologies to different people; so context and framing is vital for understanding, which requires long conversations which most people do not have time for.

‘Tyranny’ in ancient Greece referred to democratic despotism. The classical problems of democracy can lead to ‘mob rule’ where a mobster becomes a popular tyrant. Both democracies and republics that vote, are often responsible for voting tyrants into power; both by ignorance and corruption. In the example of Socrates, Plato points out that democracies can also put their wisest citizens to death as enemies of the state when facing internal ‘threats’. This problem of democracy is probably what leads fascists to claim that democracy does not work and any attempts at it are fake.

[ more later ]

 

Progressive Change Pattern

If I were to visit all the world leaders in one room, and be able to talk to them I have some idea of what I would say. I would say “Hey your honors, share more with the poor, and give less money towards war!!” I imagine they might snicker before moving on to their next big-wig business of the day, even if they didn’t have security remove me. Would saying a few of the best chosen words affect them enough to accomplish more peace and less pollution?? Even if the press made a big deal about what I said to them, the Trumpian politicians would certainly not change because of my liberal pressure. Peace and Security do not need to be liberal causes, but sadly our system does not let either of our two parties make peaceful security progress that poor people and the middle class (the majority of the population) would benefit from. The reason our representatives want to make more war and keep workers insecure seems to be because they represent their donors the plutocrats, not us. Both parties usually work together on issues that oppress us, and call stalemate on issues that would benefit us, meanwhile one side does not really fight for those issues anyway because they are paid not to, just like the other side.

 

Electing a populist leader that represents us better may be better than corporate candidates who are fake or blatantly serve the plutocrat donors; but they will face resistance from the majority of plutocratic leaders. It is only after enough grassroots democratic leaders have been elected to offices, in a future world where money does not buy power as easily due to a more informed population, that significant changes would happen. There has to be a critical mass of enough people consistently behaving in a way, before the actions sustain a new normal convention. Then that convention will have rebels who unsuccessfully resist it, but things will be better for most, until the next time change is needed badly enough to get enough popular investment to resist substantially. The pattern of civil rights progress in history seems to always be in reaction to a system which has gone too far with oppression of people and destruction of environment. Whether that oppression and destruction is called ‘conservative’ it is based on a tradition of legal violence which creates backlash against authoritarian domination.

 

Tweedle-Trump & Tweedle-Dem 2020

Corporate Politics Has Failed Democracy

Our two party system is like Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee.

This is true more now than ever, as both corporate candidates are Trump and Biden.

 

Candidates paid by companies that interfered in our elections to get Trump elected, will lose to Trump the epitome Capitalist. Our intelligence agencies and corporations interfere in our elections far more than Russia or other foreign agencies; because our agencies and corporations have more control and more money. Bloomberg and Steyer are boring billionaire Capitalists; so although they are richer than Trump, they do not have Trump’s popularity. Trump’s popularity is based on being a corporatist who sometimes talks as a fake populist actor; which is mostly a result of his insane personality and flamboyant attitude despite being deeply flawed ethically.

The best lesson so far from main-stream politics seems to be that there are two primary common traits for being an establishment candidate for president: “Get paid by corporations to show up, and have dementia”! Whether Reagan had dementia during the Iran-Contra hearings when he claimed he “cannot recall” things in court, or whether that is just a time tested strategy for how criminals avoid prosecution is not clear. But regarding Trump and Biden in 2020, it is clear that they are demented in what they say and what they do. So as long as you do what you are told, you can show up and say stupid shit all the time at work, and do stupid things that get you into law suits. Vote for tweedle-dee or tweedle-dumber, those are the options corporations give us, both will do what the bosses tell them, not what we want. It gives us hope that yes anyone can be president, as long as you just do what the people with money want since the parties are identical that way.

Occupy, Code Pink, Extinction-Rebellion, Justice Democrats, and the Sunrise movements are leading the mass progressive charge. True social protesters and environmentalists do not take orders from corporations, political parties, or government agents of any countries. Activists like Jill Stein and Greta Thunberg are our only hope to have candidates for a better future. They may have to run as independents or third party ‘greens’, but it is only by their leadership that public opinion will change society. Our heroes show us that only by standing up against those in power, and taking action for ourselves, will we have power.

Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dumber will always be “the lesser of two evils” options when we leave politics to corporate representatives.

 

Some say, compar’d to Trump

That Biden is but a filthy dump.

Others aver, that he to Biden

Causes the racial gap to widen.

Strange all this Difference should be

‘Twixt Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee’!

 

[based on Byrom’s folk epigram 1805, from ‘Original Ditties for the Nursery’]

 

The Problem of Systemic Change

Wave Pattern / Cyclical History Theory essay on civilization

[ Theme image – My ‘Tidal Wave and Sail Boat’ painting which is based on the ‘Great Wave’ by Hokusai with Van Gogh brush style. ]

Despite similarities of theories, violence vs non-violence is a critical factor for civil rights and modern history. Violent manifestos by the Unabomber or Discovery Channel Shooter, contradict the ethical wisdom of SCOD Theory. SCOD embraces more peaceful egalitarian democratic co-existence, because deconstructivist architecture can only go so far, until it has to be constructivist enough again to be utilized as shelter; the same SCOD theory applies to social systems as well. The problem of systemic change from intentional revolution is whether to advocate violence or non-violence; and how best to make needed changes. History and mythology tend to lionize violent war heroes; but modern history deviates from this due to the Civil Rights movement. 

The Netflix documentary on the Unabomber mentions the voluntary interrogation program (related to US secret agencies) at Ted’s University in relation to his psychology. I had not heard of it before, but it does sound very much like Project ‘Wormwood’ and other ‘MK-Ultra’ type operations that were unethical, and like war tend to create more terror. The paradox of using violence exists for the establishment as well as rebels. Very mathematical and scientific geniuses like Ted might have pre-existing mental health problems, but they need help rather than competitive character assassination which must lead to bodily incarceration or assassination. Despite their terrible methods, often terrorist rebels feel they are fighting for moral social or environmental justice. Their desire to do good can be encouraged with treatment, rather than pushed by further abuse or neglect. Hurting other humans tends to be less successful for defending causes, than non-violent civil disobedience protests and artistic expressions. 

SCOD theory favors peace and art not only as radical tools for social change, but also as parts of the utopian vision with which we would solve our problems and replace our systemic terror. The sadness of not being able to show your work to enough people to have a network of patrons, or the fear of not being worthy enough to do what you love are symptoms of a system that keeps us at perpetual war and in debt rather than free. Greater freedom means having more control over our own individual lives, and less dependent on the whims of others for the basics of life in civilization. The role of good democratic governments is to be run by the people, for the people. These reasons are why we like leaders like FDR (WW2 militancy aside), MLK, and Bernie Sanders. Environmental activist groups like Green Peace, ELF, Extinction Rebellion, and Sea Shepherd are disruptive so they make a social impact, but do not kill people.

Our corporate MIC (Military Industrial Complex) has our system so rigged, that paid players remove any real democratic opposition as ‘foreign influence’ aka ‘enemies of the state’ of the ‘War on Terror’ or the ‘NEW RED SCARE’. Our system bosses do not tolerate real change from third parties like the Green Party, because peace or environmental progress would reduce corruption. Corporate MIC propaganda war is a real problem.

Trump was a convenient democratic-republic glitch for corporations, as the system sometimes gets the ‘greater of two evils’ into office (see also Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I & II). Trump’s presidency was a result mostly of the corporate influenced electoral college and Hillary Clinton-DNC primary fraud. Corporate agents blame Russia for the Clinton-DNC emails getting leaked, but it was what was in the emails that turned blue states red (see WV and MI). Many voters hated Hillary Clinton so much that they voted for Trump, because at least he promised some of the liberal Bernie Sanders type changes (fighting corruption, universal health-care, and less wars). The obvious difference between Bernie Sanders and Trump is that Sanders has a successful record of fighting for populist positions like union worker rights over corporate profit; the campaign difference crucially enabled by grass-roots funding rather than corporate funding.

 The only way to hold the establishment accountable, is if you are not beholden to the criminals in power. The system usually removes peaceful potential threats like Tulsi Gabbard with smears, when they are too much against the MIC, and have too much credibility (Tulsi is an elected representative and veteran soldier), and tend to take assassination steps (foreign and domestic) when they have made too much change already (see history of CIA foreign coups, and the problematic Malcom-X, MLK, JFK, RFK cases). The Peace movement is not allowed to gain too much ground, because war is a racket for profit. People are beginning to see through the propaganda, I do not feel as alone anymore, from all the outlets I hear.

One famous example of internal change which can affect systemic change, is Dicken’s ‘Christmas Carol’. The main motivation which Scrooge will struggle with everyday after his Christmas morning revelation of joyful good-will, is his memory of the shocking awareness of self-made torture and terror that a snobbish demon of hell can be oblivious to otherwise. Religions tend to use both redemptive allegory (Jesus) and mythology (Revelation). Armageddon apocalypse mythologies are cyclical in that religions describe a ‘heavenly’ utopian life after death, before or after the next time a god decides to use their graceful warriors against their enemies. The Bible may promise eternal bliss, but it is quite clear that God can change his mind about promises if ‘Satan’ interferes (see Job). Although the ‘Beast’ may be defeated during one great war, it is clear that angels can fall from grace and become devils and demons who disobey. We have only one famous example, but how often it happens or what restrictions there may be in place at a later time are not at all clear. The Norse great apocalyptic war ‘Ragnarok’ is more clear about this wave pattern of decline and climax. The viking warriors believed that they must fight and die to go to the great hall (Valhalla) of Heaven (Asgard), where they would await the final battle of the gods after death, and the cycle of humans fighting and dying, and fighting as legendary deities would repeat again forever.

 

If we are the surviving minority, how would we make things better? How would our ‘good’ story of humanity resolve the problems of today in the future? Is it possible to have realistic and happy futurist visions?? I hope so.

*

[ Audio Recording of Essay ]

**

Davos & The Green Swan 2020

2020 Summary of a ‘Yahoo Finance’ article about the next crash

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) central bank said in a paper titled “The Green Swan” that climate-related events could be the source of the next financial crisis. The increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events could trigger non-linear and irreversible financial losses. In turn, the immediate and system-wide transition required to fight climate change could have far-reaching effects potentially affecting every single agent in the economy and every single asset price.

In last week’s run-up to Davos, at least two Wall Street banks chimed in on how climate change alters the conversation around what economic growth can be and how policymakers should pursue this end. “Debt, inequality and environmental damage are major issues for growth sustainability,” said economists at Deutsche Bank in a note last week. “However, one could argue that the first two are cyclical whereas the third is potentially structural.” Deutsche Bank adds that, “The problem for the environmental lobby is that a world without economic growth may create a damaging backlash against such climate policies. Nevertheless, the problem with the status quo is that the irreversible damage to our planet will increase.”

On the one hand, modern civilization is screwed. On the other hand, modern civilization is screwed.

*
See ‘Why Economists Worry’ By Myles Udland, reporter and co-anchor of The Final Round. January 22, 2020

Trumpism: Symptoms of Corporate Crisis

Trump is a symptom of a larger crony corporate problem.

Sanders earns votes from workers because he gets the problems.

This economy really sucks, and has gotten worse every year since the 1990s for most people as far as cost of living and flow of lower and middle class income goes. The unemployment rate does not account for the larger numbers of people under-employed, unemployed and do not get unemployment benefits, and those not included in those other categories in Federal Records, so the real number of people in America who cannot pay their bills is much higher than is officially recognized.

Global Warming means mass murder. People need to know that industries who fuel Global Climate Change are committing mass murder, due to the political and environmental destabilizing that happens in extreme conditions on all levels of civilization, into the future for as long as the artificially caused imbalance happens. Overall global temperatures rise, climate pattern become more erratic, polar ice melts, sea levels rise, coasts go under water, political migrant crises and harder working conditions for outside labor cause economic and social civil wars, and the problems compound over decades and generations (see Bill Nye or scientists who can speak to non-scientists about it, if you don’t like Al Gore).

 

How does Trump compare to other presidents? Who else dismantled safety regulations and protection studies for the environment and all products (cutting EPA, USDA, NASA, NOAA, NPS, Dept of Education)?? Trump publicly sides with Nazis against Peace Activists which makes him worse than most modern presidents, and possibly Nixon considering Nixon gave in and created the EPA from public pressure to try to control pollution. Trump is an inside trader, con man who has committed fraud multiple times on large scales, profiting from being president in violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution, and then there are his cases of rape and pedophilia that are on official court record by the victims. People accuse Hillary of murder based on a theory I looked into, but it did not seem worse than what Trump may have done (Epstein) as he is clearly capable and has incited violence at his rallies and in tweets, and there is senate testimony that he threatens people mafia style in his regular business deals. Oh yeah he signed the Dakota Pipeline into effect as soon as he got in office, despite the victory of Standing Rock, and promotes continuing global warming, which means mass murder due to worsening conditions combined with race wars he promotes (Border Concentration Camps & Wall & Ice Raids).

Trumpism is not just about Trump, he is just the chump puppet face of corporate corruption for a world wide phenomenon of nationalist unrest and economic inequality. Other countries already had nationalist reactionary problems, and now have their own versions of Trump, emboldened by his words and actions. Fascism is in power and on the rise in more and more other nations. Italy, Greece, England (Brexit), Spain, China, Hong Kong, Central and South America… all have conservative nationalist movements that want to use violence on minorities and migrants (bigotry) as red herrings for systemic problems that have other causes. Even countries like Mexico and Canada have neo-liberal corporate politicians that want to cut down more forests and keep polluting (more oil pipe-lines) for Capitalism, although they do not want to use violence as much as neo-conservatives. Therefore it is clear that grassroots democracy and Green New Deals are the only way ahead for progressive humanists, regardless of party politics.

[ AUDIO Recording of this Essay ]

2 Climate Change Theories

Scientific vs Corporate

The main climate change theory i will call the Scientific Climate Theory presented by the majority of scientists is that artificial CO2 and other man-made (in addition to natural) factors are primarily contributing to overall global warming, which causes climate change in various ways, sometimes temporarily cooling during warm seasons (which seems like a contradiction but is not because the overall trend is warming according to annual temperature averages). This consensus in Science is supported primarily by Centrist Left Wing and Radical Liberals politically, who believe that the time for debate is over and it should not be a political issue because it is true and not just an opinion.

The minority climate change theory i will call the Corporate Climate Theory, supported by extreme skeptics of science and government (deniers), is that environmentalists are lying about the data evidence to hide that most of it is naturally either being caused by Solar irregularities or Geo-tectonic magnetic seismic shifts and volcanic activity or both. This is the side that defends those totally uninterested or ignorant in climate science as well, who doubt there are any problems with pollution that can affect global conditions. One of the issues they bring up is that storm flooding (cold) and (heat) droughts are opposites, and should not both be results of global warming. This proposed paradox does not take into account the melting of the polar ice which raises sea level, and the chaos that can result from this regarding flooding and more severe storms, freak cooling periods in some areas, but overall prolonged intense heating of the global atmosphere. Minor theories are usually supported by Radical Right Wing Conservatives and Libertarians (Corporate Centrists tend to pay lip service and not want any action on it), who believe no one should interfere in the rights of corporations to pollute, and are currently dismantling the EPA, NPS, and other branches of the government under Trump.

So to summarize, both agree that there will be more severe climate chaos like weather that is out of season. The Scientific Climate Theory says that artificially caused CO2 pollution from industry and agriculture is mainly to blame, as it can clearly be shown to increase during the Industrial Age of civilization, and not anytime in human history before this. It does have some similarities to pre-historic massive volcanic periods, but other chemical evidence and current factors rule out volcanoes as the main cause in CO2 levels currently. The most extreme Corporate Climate Theory is our government is lying to us to hide that our Sun is growing closer or more intense; which can be debunked by talking to actual scientists who observe the Sun independent of the government, and that it would make no sense for the branches of the government like the EPA or NPS or Pentagon to give false support for environmentalists, because most of the government is controlled by Corporate interests, and they do not benefit by belief in environmentalism. Corporate Green-washing is not what interests people who care about quality of life for all animals and humans, nor the military who takes the threats of Climate Change seriously due to the causes of wars that are tied to natural conditions like resources, property, shelter, and all the economics related to environmental issues. The money being made by Scientists or environmentalists currently, still pales compared to the profits of fossil fuel polluters, so the theory of profit motive causing scientists to lie about climate data is bunk as well. The debate is over for rational thinkers, but the corporate socialism vs democratic socialism debate is just beginning for a world run and terrorized by capitalists.

Corruption Trials Can Create Change

Some people fear holding officials accountable, in fear of another corrupt vice politician hypothetically causing more problems, or that it would mean endless hearings and trials about corruption, thus grid-locking government more than usual. Having more public attention about corruption, could force restructuring of democracy for functionality. To me it seems irrational to allow a terrible leader to continue causing harm, by any illogical reasoning that allows abuse instead of ethics. To be fair it would be interesting to hear a scenario where oligarchs would allow our change to happen; which might well be impossible so long as corporations and plutocrats control the economy and campaign finance aka bribery. Perhaps the ultimate conclusion is that people en mass create the social change that years from now facilitate economics and politics for small people and all people. How grassroots change happens is first by compassionate communication for the less fortunate poor, with at least some frequency and sympathetic rationality using arts and sciences to reflect egalitarian goals and aspirations. Over time systems become run by people with the collective core values that groups of people expect and demand, even if their words and promises fall short of actions. Needed actions tend to happen when individual people feel empowered enough to carry out the activities that give them rewards (see Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’). If individuals can run large groups democratically with enough members to fill offices and run accountability rules, then Plato’s need for a Philosopher King would be overturned by the majority of masses joining Socrates and Diogenes in noble quests in common spaces using dialog instead of only fixed rhetoric and abuse of power. Perhaps democracy can hold leaders accountable, rather than jail or execute public nuisances.

Collage Break-Beat Drumming

CBB Drumming:  Modern Progressive Break-beat Fragment Collages, Jazz Wobbles, and Tempo Shifting

Conventional drummers, and even standard break-beat artists, will often use only one tempo for the main percussion sections in a song. Break-beat tends to ‘take breaks’ from the beat, for ambient sections, but it usually keeps to ‘breaks’ (broken fragments) within a zig-zag 4/4 rhythm. However a progressive break-beat drummer can progress through various rhythms by using wobbles, bridges, blasts, fills, fades, and dead breaks.

Traditionally only the best or most arrogant drummers could ever claim to ‘perfectly’ keep a steady tempo or beat rhythm all the time. Even today most human drummers will have subtle variations or wobbles in their rhythms, as compared to a more constant metronome or digital beat machine (such as a computer). Variations in beat happen even when humans use mechanical devices to aid their timing. This is due to deviations in mental evaluation, audio perception, and physical dexterity.

Once we understand that even the best human drummers are not going to be ‘on beat’ perfectly all the time; we can begin to have patience for an emerging musical movement that embraces our ability to change, and even accepts our fallibility. Traditional and conventional drummers and people conditioned to hear their repetitious rules, call tempo shifting or playing off beats “bad drumming” or “annoying”; since progressive break-beat is not limited by tempo dogma.

Progressive Break-beat is like an audio Jeet-Kun-Do. As Bruce Lee said “Do not concentrate on the finger… be like water, be formless… do not believe in styles, styles separate man, it is a process of continuing growth.” Just as we should practice martial arts that fit our own bodies and minds, we should practice music that best fits our own bodies and minds.

There are different types of personalities, that will practice in different ways; to be able to play together we must first understand this. Once we understand our differences, we can adapt our forms and patterns, to have a conversation or relationship with the others that are at first impossible or annoying. Any type of music may be annoying to anyone at any time, although certainly the most annoying sounds are ones that seem to have aggressive conflict or discordant tones or beats. To a mind wanting to experience those issues, the music is not annoying, but rather used for venting self-expression as cathartic therapy.

So the premise of CBB (Collage Break-beat Theory), is that a progressive break-beat drummer can progress through various rhythms by using wobbles, bridges, blasts, fills, fades, and dead breaks. This is possible to achieve even while playing with conventional drummers, if they are patient enough to keep playing their own style, or adapt to the breaks. There are many tool techniques to make a CBB song, which pastes together audio and forms how the collage pieces fit together.

A wobble can be a beat bounced (shaken or wiggled) around like a ball, as well as a bass tone stretched and shifting pitch (oscillating bass). In drum circles this wobble sound can be made with a drum or didgeridoo, horn, or voice. Even a whistle or drum blast can be used as a transition signal.

A musical bridge is a piece of transition music played to patch together sections of a song. The bridge can be an interlude solo, or it can be a combination of the sounds before and after it. Fills, noodles, and grace-notes can be used to make use of discord or mistakes.

Fades and dead-breaks are the easiest ways to cut into a new beat.

If someone cannot play with you, they can chill until they find a way into the jam. Jam sessions (like free-form drum circles) are all about taking turns, trying to harmonize, and negotiating differences in styles to be able to play together. A generous expert player will play to the least level, to invite others to play at least for bit.  Ok, play on!

*

Musical Psychology – Temporal Bias

Popular Psychology Regarding Music and Temporal Associations

People tend to associate old music with the old mentalities born during the same period, vs associating new music with change. Often it has to do with the person thinking such things, and less to do with society. For example one person may have been addicted to drugs during their high school “Led Zeppelin” phase, and so they look down on listening to that music now. And someone that enjoyed themselves during their Led Zeppelin period, may love that music still. Even people not from the era the music was made, can have totally opposing feelings about their different associations.

In music for me it is about being open to the way other people play, and try to play with them. If they are not open to the way I play overall, there is not much to be done about it. There has to be a willingness to compromise and play together, just like in friendships. I have been making music since i was a kid, and this is my philosophy.

Make your own music, they way you want to make it. I encourage others to express themselves, especially if it does not hurt anyone else. Never mind if no one else likes the way you sing or play an instrument as much as you do. Playing music for yourself, is a very valid exercise and meditation.

I wonder how many public performers get told they suck, simply because the audience is grumpy or does not like their style??  Also technical issues with instruments can make people think players are far ‘worse’ than they are when not being affected by a glitch. I think most opinion works on vague impression. There is a reason most people that care about you will tell you ‘who cares what others think, play for yourself’; it is not that they really don’t care about the opinions of others, it is that they realize we care too much for people that want to bring us down to make themselves feel better. One reason people do not want to be in bands is because of ‘egos’; which means at least one or more people in the group being overly egotistical, controlling, and too selfish. When people want everyone to play only their way of playing, play becomes work to please the boss, and things get exclusive quickly.

*

Global Climate Change

Global Warming – Extreme Heat / Polar Melting / Coastal Flooding / Some Extreme Cooling – sporadic Cold Pockets randomly during shorter cold months / More Larger Storms / More Wars over Resources / Vast Impoverished areas due to devastation 

*

This is what NASA says about Global Warming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cNB-UGEqqI

*

Here is what NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) says:  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Climate Change Graph: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3

Recent Century Temperatures Spikes: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html

*

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) basics:  http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

EPA = “Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change.”

“Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The majority of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels to produce energy, although deforestation, industrial processes, and some agricultural practices also emit gases into the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around Earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm. This phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect and is natural and necessary to support life on Earth. However, the buildup of greenhouse gases can change Earth’s climate and result in dangerous effects to human health and welfare and to ecosystems.”

*

*

Yes climate change happens with or without us, but there is no doubt that our human INDUSTRIAL pollution has greatly affected our recent climate, and the future of human civilization on a planetary scale. Yes it should scare the shit out of people, because its an unfortunate and terrible fact.

This is one of the starting points of the logic chain behind Climate Science theory. Scientists in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s would not have shot the source of their funding in the foot, if they did not believe they were being objectively honest scientists. The Oil Companies did not like the results that their own scientists found, so they tried to bury the facts. It is not an accident that the corporate funded right wing would lie about pollution. For oil companies it is necessary to down play or discount climate science, to maintain profits. It does not take intense brain-storming to figure that out, that is just basic reasoning.

[ Environmental Science Degree .com article ‘What We Know About Climate Change‘ ]

“Scientists began to experiment with various climate change models. Perhaps one of the first experiments that confused the public regarding environmental warming vs. cooling was the one Maurice Ewing and William L. Donn offered in 1958. During that year, Roger Revelle discovered that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans, a landmark opening salvo that destroyed a long-term standing that the immense mass of the oceans would quickly absorb whatever excess carbon dioxide might come from human activities.”

“The first meeting on causes of climate change met in Boulder Colorado in 1965, and it was here that scientists pointed to the chaotic nature of the climate systme and the possibility of sudden shifts. “

“The global environmental movement becomes stronger, and the celebration of the first Earth Day occurred in 1970. That same year, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was created as the world’s leading funder of climate research. 1976: Studies show that chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs), methane, and ozone can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. Deforestation and other ecosystem changes are recognized as major factors in the future of the climate. 1977: Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century.”

“A new group of documents was revealed on Thursday (2018), detailing Shell’s history of studying climate change and its impacts. The documents show that not only did the company understand its role in climate change for the past several decades, but also predicted that legal liability awaited. The documents were found by Jelmer Mommers, a journalist for De Correspondent, and are available at the Climate Files website.

They are similar to the documents that the nonprofit news organization InsideClimate News unearthed in 2015 about Exxon’s decades of climate science knowledge.

Here is a timeline that shows internal research and discussions by some of the biggest oil companies over the past 40 years and how their public statements and campaigns often included very different messages. It begins to draw the picture of what the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change and when and how it contrasted with their public stance:

July 1977: James Black, a scientist at Exxon, told the company’s top management that scientific evidence showed burning fossil fuels was causing climate change.

May 1981: In a paper written for Exxon’s head of research, the company scientist Henry Shaw estimated that global temperatures will increase by 3 degrees Celsius with the doubling of the carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, which could cause catastrophic impacts as early as the first half of the 21st century.

November 1982: Exxon distributed a paper internally on climate change that advised “major reductions in fossil fuel combustion” for limiting global warming.

June 1988: James Hansen, a NASA scientist, testified during a congressional hearing that human activities were causing global warming. It was the first major public warning of a looming climate crisis.

1988: Shell prepared an internal report called “The Greenhouse Effect” that analyzed the impacts of climate change. It noted that fossil fuel burning was driving climate change and quantified the carbon emissions from its products (oil, gas, coal) made up 4 percent of global emissions in 1984.

1989: In a move to coordinate a public response to the growing attention on climate change, a group of big businesses, including Exxon, BP and Shell, formed the Global Climate Coalition. It set out to cast doubt on climate science and lobby against efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

February 1995: An internal report by Shell warned that fossil fuel burning was the main source of manmade emissions that was driving global warming, and this fact “could have major business implications for the fossil fuel industry.” – Climate Liability News

 

“Exxon made the news in September and October of 2015 when research produced by InsideClimate News, the Los Angeles Times, and the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism revealed that Exxon had known since the 70s about the causes of climate change and the dangers climate disruption poses. The articles spurred a wave of actions against Exxon.

In November 2015, the New York state attorney general announced an investigation into Exxon for disclosure violations. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders called for a federal investigation into the company. And more than 350,000 Americans joined that call, petitioning the Department of Justice to investigate.

The news has changed the game on fossil fuel companies and their role in climate denial. But Exxon’s track record on climate science denial and climate double talk has been growing for some time. Check the timeline below for a rundown. Along the way, note how global atmospheric carbon levels continue to rise past 350 parts per million (ppm), the level scientists say is safe for human civilization as we know it, while Exxon’s profits (in nominal dollars) continue to rise. 1957
Scientists working at Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) publish a paper on the dilution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean. The paper notes: “Although appreciable amounts of carbon dioxide have undoubtedly been added from soils by tilling of land, apparently a much greater amount has resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels”–indicating company scientists understood the link between fossil fuel use and rising CO2. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)

1968 (Global CO2 level: 323 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $1.2 billion)
In a report produced for the American Petroleum Institute, scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins note that, among the possible sources of rising CO2 in the atmosphere, “none seems to fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel emanation theory.” The paper warns that significant rises in CO2 could melt icecaps, increase sea levels, change fish distributions and increase plant photosynthesis.

[ Source: Center for International Environmental Law & Greenpeace ]

“The documents include a 1957 study, “Radiocarbon Evidence on the Dilution of Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon by Carbon from Fossil Fuels,” published by scientists working for Humble Oil, a precursor of ExxonMobil. The study looked at how carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion accumulates in the atmosphere and oceans and indicates that scientists affiliated with the fossil fuel industry were not just aware of what happens to the climate when we burn fossil fuels, but were at the leading edge of scientific understanding of it. ” – UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) USA

“The fossil fuel industry hired the same schmuck that ran the disinformation campaign for the tobacco lobby to run their anti-science campaign as well.” – Scientist off the record

“A pair of studies published Wednesday provides stark evidence that the rise in global temperatures over the past 150 years has been far more rapid and widespread than any warming period in the past 2,000 years — a finding that undercuts claims that today’s global warming isn’t necessarily the result of human activity.” – ‘New Evidence’ 2019

“Climate change affects the growth of plants in three ways. First, as CO2 levels increase, plants need less water to do photosynthesis. This well-documented effect was long thought to mean that there would be more fresh water available in soils and streams. But a second effect counters that: A warming world means longer and warmer growing seasons, which gives plants more time to grow and consume water, drying the land. Researchers have now shown a third effect: As CO2 levels rise, it amps up photosynthesis. Plants in this hotter, CO2-rich environment grow bigger, with more leaves. That means when it rains there will be far more wet leaves creating more surface area for more evaporation to occur. Computer modelling shows that such enhanced leaf evaporation has a large effect on runoff and soil moisture, says Mankin.” – National Geographic

*

What should we do about our own pollution shit? Clean it up, and stop making more. The answer is a big part of what SCOD is all about. Renewable energy, green architecture, sustainable living, etc…. Here is what the Navajo people are doing about it! NAVAJO answer to climate change!!!

*