Archive for change

2 Climate Change Theories

Posted in Artificial Chemical Products, Climate Change, Commercial Corporations, Critical Commentary of Civilization, Military, Science & Math, Technology - Vehicles, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 3, 2019 by Drogo

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.

Advertisements

Corruption Trials Can Create Change

Posted in Philosophy, Politics, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 26, 2017 by Drogo

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

Posted in Arts (Design & Performance), Organic Development, POB Audio with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 18, 2013 by Drogo

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!

Walton Drum

*

Musical Psychology – Temporal Bias

Posted in Critical Commentary of Civilization, Music Reviews, POB Audio, Psychology with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 31, 2012 by Drogo

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

Posted in Climate Change with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 7, 2012 by Drogo

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

*

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!!!

*