May 12, 2016
Reading our own Fay Voshell's excellent discussion I was struck by this passage:
"This brings us to the other important component essential to the success of the one-worlders â€“ namely, the elimination of distinct identities among humans. Ultimately, their goal is to see that men and women (pardon the politically incorrect terminology) are without a country and without identity, including any differentiation between the sexes."
This got me to thinking about historical precedents, of which there are indeed any number, and if the dreams of a "new Man" dreamt by the internationalists would actually work.
First, let us discuss statelessness. If you seek to eliminate nations you seek to create a permanent state of statelessness among the population. What does that mean?
Well, we have had any number of historical examples of stateless people throughout history. Pirates, for example, were generally stateless, and they were vicious little Chihuahuas, their hands against all others. Granted, pirates were stateless by choice, having eschewed the constraints of their home nations to further their own ends, but it is pretty clear that statelessness and monstrous criminality can indeed go hand-in-hand.
Consider some other stateless peoples; the Bedouin, migrants who were never members of the Middle Eastern kingdoms around them, were notorious for thievery, enslaving passers-by, and general bad behavior. The same is true of the Romani (Gypsies) or Irish Travelers, peoples who may live in certain countries but do not consider themselves to be members of that state. Consider, too, the early days of the Mafia in the United States, where there was greater allegiance to The Family than to the adoptive country. The result? Murder, mayhem, theft, all manner of terrible and evil acts.
Think about the Russian Cossacks; these were men who fled Tsarist Russia, as well as local natives and the remains of the old Golden Horde. Cossacks were stateless people, and the terror of decent Russian citizens.
This is true even where peoples have lost their nations. Often groups like Native Americans have turned to guerilla warfare after being defeated in battle, and the end result is a sort of barbarism that any civilized person would recoil from when it is evinced. Another example would be the Turkmen in central Asia, who routinely kidnapped and held in sexual slavery young Russian girls.
In short, statelessness seems to lead to barbarism and anarchy, and to GREATER bloodshed rather than peace.
The reasons are simple enough; without the connections formed by a healthy community individuals and groups no longer have any reason to work together, and they become natural competitors. This isn't so bad in a society sharing certain moral and religious values (especially in Christendom and Judaism where strict commands are given believers to love their neighbors) but in a purely materialistic world (as the internationalist envision) there is no reason not to screw over your neighbor; he's your rival, not your friendly competitor.
Which brings us to the way society has handled this in bygone days. There are essentially two ways to do it - either through enculturation into a state or through conquest and force of arms.
History is replete with examples of enculturation. The Vikings settled all over Europe, and when they first came they were blood-thirsty barbarians. Later they would become erudite, upstanding members of society - after settlement they saw the value of adopting the ways of the state they had invaded. The Germanic invaders of Rome were described as pretty much dirt bags by the Roman Tacitus:
"Whenever they are not fighting, they pass much of their time in the chase, and still more in idleness, giving themselves up to sleep and to feasting, the bravest and the most warlike doing nothing, and surrendering the management of the household, of the home, and of the land, to the women, the old men, and all the weakest members of the family. They themselves lie buried in sloth, a strange combination in their nature that the same men should be so fond of idleness, so averse to peace. It is the custom of the states to bestow by voluntary and individual contribution on the chiefs a present of cattle or of grain, which, while accepted as a compliment, supplies their wants. They are particularly delighted by gifts from neighboring tribes, which are sent not only by individuals but also by the state, such as choice steeds, heavy armour, trappings, and neck-chains. We have now taught them to accept money also. "
And it was this close connection formed with Rome that gave us the highly civilized Germans who would later appear. We would not have so many aspects of high culture - classical music, for example, without them. Why? They had moved into Roman territory, become Roman (to a degree) and even had taken the Empire over with the coronation of Odoacer as Emperor in 476.
There are many other examples; Kublai Khan was described as a polished, erudite emperor of China by Marco Polo, yet his grandfather lived in a tent and murdered tens of thousands of people. The Mongols were absorbed by the Chinese state, even while they conquered it.
But that only works when you have a state that is largely intact.
What is the other option? Conquest and empire.
That is, in fact, how all of human history, the blood and iron, the cruelty and hardness of the ancient world, dealt with stateless peoples. They built empires, centralized, organized, militarized, and they simply forced the stateless to join them or die. Empires were generally not stable and rarely lasted more than a generation or two, because they were not forced as a result of a consent of the People but rather through the subjugation. The people sometimes cooperated out of hatred for the suzerain, but more often they hated each-other just as much but did nothing lest they bring the wraith of the imperium on them. Empires always were multicultural, with disparate groups living in close proximity often - a proximity that was generally fostered by the overlords to keep the conquered peoples from rising. It is, by the way, the same thing our overlords in Washington are doing with open borders and this mad scheme by Julian Castro to forcibly integrate upper class communities via a resettlement program for poor blacks (whom they have made poor and prevented enculturation to act as a wedge). Divide and conquer, the old saying goes. This is precisely what Washington is doing - and what was done by the ancient empires.
Multiculturalism is a recipe for disaster. Look at the multicultural parts of the world - Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, India, etc. All suffer from warfare, strife, endless fighting and misery. They do so because people with nothing in common have fought to grab their slice of the pie, and screw their neighbors. We are busily balkanizing our own nation, and indeed the whole world. Ferguson Mo. is a classic example, a place where upper middle class people enjoyed a gentrified life next door to the institutional poor, who rose up in fury when Mike Brown was shot and burned the city down. We can look forward to more of that as time goes by. It should be pointed out that the institutional poor often have little love for the society at large (even though they owe their very existence to the beneficence of that society). In a way the ghetto is a stateless place, and it is held in check solely by the exercise of power.
Which is what empires do; they hold the violence in check through power, not consent.
That is why what John Kerry and Barack Obama advocate is madness; a stateless world with an imperial international government. This is nothing but a return to Pax Romana, only on a world level. They are taking Rome, which never worked all that well outside of the projection of force, and metastasizing it.
The creation of the Nation-State was a huge leap forward for Mankind; the Middle Ages saw what happens when you have a stateless condition. There was constant warfare and plunder, rape and pillage during the Middle Ages, and that was because there were no states, just a bunch of strong men who could project power over certain territory. It was the creation of the Nation-State that brought about a measure of peace and prosperity. Yes, the nations of Europe fought, but primarily that was a result of their reverting to empire status after the discovery of the new World. The empirization of Europe brought back the bad old days. But warfare in Europe, though nearly constant, was quite civilized in manner throughout the 17th century and into the 18th, with established rules for warfare, with limited bloodshed, with protections for non-combatants. It was only with the dawn of the 19th century that war became the bloody thing it had been in the past. The French Revolution, and especially Napoleon, destroyed the rules of warfare.
The Progressives want to return to that. In fact, they are going to double down with the destruction of individual identities.
This current "transgenderism" and the near worship of homosexuality is, as Fay argues, a tool to break down individuality, which oddly enough is a tool to break down nations. Nations are, after all, aggregates of individuals, and the individual is a repository of the values of the nation. Break one and you break the other. But will this bring peace? Well, Ted Kozcynski, the Unibomber, participated in a mind control experiment while he was at Harvard, and they tried to break his personality. The result? Mass murder. People who have their identities broken tend to be angry, because they are powerless, twisting in the progressive winds. Look at the results of efforts by the U.S. government to break the native American cultures; the reservations became places of utter despair, with rampant alcoholism, with promiscuity, with sloth and poverty. Ditto the black ghetto, where the legacy of slavery and the later imposition of a government institutional life has given us an angry, drug addled, crime riddled underclass. The black community had identity issues already and then the depersonalization of the welfare state pushed it over the edge.
And sexual identity goes to the heart of a person. People raised as the wrong sex suffer from enormous emotional scars. Take Ernest Hemmingway; he was raised as a girl in his childhood, and spent the rest of his life proving his masculinity to himself and the world. Hemmingway killed himself. He is hardly the lone example of this, and in fact LGBT teens are five times more likely to commit suicide. Why? The Progressives argue it is solely because of societal pressure and that the solution is to double down on the problem. They will never consider that perhaps it is because these young people were made male and female and are acting in opposition to what God and Nature prescribed. In fact, many gay people adopt their homosexuality as their primary identity, something that leads to radical activism and aggression. It's a shame, because their real identity should be deeper than that. But that is part of the breaking process, the plan pushed by the Progressives to get rid of the Old Man and create the new. Sadly, by going after sexual decency and morality they intend to push people into what they know to be wrong so as to ultimately drive a chasm between themselves, between each-other, and with God.
The Mau-Mau used to make their recruits commit every sin in every religion; the idea was to separate them from all others so they would not be able to leave their new identities. This whole Transgender business is a Mau-Mau induction. Interestingly enough, Barack Hussein Obama is the grandson of a Mau-Mau.
He also had some quite inappropriate relations with his "pop". See his homoerotic poem here.
Obama - multiracial child of no particular culture, a stateless person who was whisked around the world and who never put down roots - is a prime example of what is wrong with this plan. Obama is petulant, small, petty, childish, full of anger and bile. He is busily destroying America because he can. He has the makings of a tyrant, using the power of his position to ram down the throats of Americans all manner of indigestible things without consent. He clearly believes he is better than everyone. He does this because he has no self identity, no sense of who he is. He is a blind soul twisting in the wind. That is why he has said he knows more about any issue than any of his advisors; such hubris is a necessary part of a person who is without a soul, because he has to fill the vacancy somehow. He fills it with himself, deifies himself because he is all he has to cling to. If Obama seems childish it is because he is; he suffers from the same problem that young children have, namely, he doesn't have a people, a culture, ingrained in him. Children are forming their personalities through experience but have yet to attain maturity because they have not learned who they are as a people. Obama never had a people, moving around the world and then existing in a cocoon of Hawaiian Marxism. Obama is a child, someone who never formed a mature personality. Everything was handed to him because he was biracial, and he never developed character or a sense of self. HE is who the internationalist want to make our children.
They are monstrously, monumentally wrong. Their way will lead to a dark age that will last for a long, long time. Who knows what things will look like if they succeed?
May 07, 2016
May 04, 2016
May 03, 2016
Missouri pulls a fast one, replacing Common Core with, well, Common Core:
The attack upon education is but one segment of the Common Coreâ€Ž/Theft of Local Control attack that is blanketing the country. The ultimate goal is the destruction, even the abortion of a child's individualism. This is why I maintain that anyone who is pro-life must be anti-Common Core/Theft of Local Control.
How do circus trainers of elephants prevent adult elephants from roaming away from the circus? They 'train' them as babies, tying one leg to a post that is pounded into the ground. The baby elephant will try to break loose, but, being a baby, it hasn't the strength to do so. After awhile, the baby elephant tires of the futility of his/her efforts, and comes to see the post as part of life. As it matures, it no longer attempts to break loose, even though it would take very little effort to do so.
Now, consider P-20W (Pre-K to Work) and how limiting this will be for generations, because they will know nothing but the 'posts' used to restrict them from their pre-K years, and reinforced every year following.
The predatory puppeteers have recruited downline, and are determined to force Common Core/Theft of Local Control upon all children, save their own children and those gifted children who are coercable.
May 02, 2016
The dangers of an EMP attack are discussed at American Thinker.
I warned of this threat years ago, and it has only increased with N. Korea launching a second satellite in polar orbit. Thanks to Obama's killing the Strategic Defence Initiative we have no way of dealing with this type of threat. Granted, we have satellite killer technology (probably) but what good does it do while two satellites orbit above our heads? Employing a satellite killer after the first EMP would be pointless; it is high enough to take the whole country down the first strike.
For those who do not know, an electromagneetic ppulse is generated when an atomic bomb is burst above the stratosphere. The bomb generates a burst of gamma rays which strip electrons off the air molecules, sending the electrons down and away in a massive electromagnetic surge (the Compton Effect). The surge is too powerful and too fast for standard surge protection gear, and all the electronics that are unprotected *usual protection would require being deep underground or stored inside of a Faraday cage) will blow out. Since everything uses complet electronics these days an EMP would be absolutely devastating. ALL power would go out - and that includes any care built after 1980, which have computers that regulate them. No communications, no radio, no television, no computers, no cars or any means of transport, no pumps for gasoline or water, no shipments, no farmers plowing, no nothing. America would be sent back into the stone age; we don't have the 19th century technology available anymore, and we don't have horses for transport, nor kerosene lamps in any major capacity, nor anything. What is in your home will be IT for you. And, given the altitude that a satellite can explode at, one bomb should be sufficient for taking down the Continental U.S.
It really is that serious. A Congressional Report issued in 2007 estimated an amazing 90% kill rate within the first year; nine out of ten people will die as a result of starvation, dehydration, disease, and murder. And we must ask if liberals like Obama would bother to retaliate, and if we did what good would it do to smash North Korea? It's already smashed, and our own emp attack would accomplish nothing; we would have to actually use ground nukes on them - something the Chinese and Russians wouldn't tolerate much. Obama and the U.S. government no doubt will be safe in bunkers, at military bases especially prepared for it, in Cheyenne Mountain. It's the little people who will suffer. But Obama is not going to want any trouble with these other nuclear powers, so perhaps they will help us after Babylon has fallen.
For decades the U.S. government denied there was any such thing as the EMP affect. They knew about it from the original Starfish Prime nuclear test on Johnston Atoll in 1959, but always claimed nothing happened, even though the 1.5 megaton fission bomb blew out lightbulbs in Hawaii and took out radios and electrical equipment. That was a small bomb airburst just a few thousand feet above the target. When I wrote EMP and the Unfought Victory I was roundly chastised by people claiming to have been part of Starfish Prime who said I was completely wrong, yet a year later Congress warned of the frightful dangers of this very thing. Misinformation, clearly, and no doubt paid for with your tax dollars. i suppose it's an honor to be rebuked by the government, but at the time it was hard for me to refute. But it turns out I was right all along.
That'll be cold comfort if the bombs blow.
May 01, 2016
InsideClimate News likes to say it has received prestigious awards for being an influential "pioneer of nonprofit advocacy journalism.â€ In reality, it is funded by wealthy far-left foundations and excels at creating "self-sustaining environmentalist echo chambers.â€ Its active partnerships with the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and other media outlets enable it to orchestrate one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues.
My article this week delves into ICNâ€™s inner workings, alliances and funding arrangements. It gives citizens and voters new reasons to question the narratives purveyed by "public interestâ€ environmental groups and the "mainstreamâ€ media.
Inside climate propaganda
InsideClimate News excels at propagating environmentalist and Obama thinking and policies
Have you ever wondered how the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and your local media always seem to present similar one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues? How their assertions become "common knowledge,â€ like the following?
Global temperatures are the hottest ever recorded. Melting ice caps are raising seas to dangerous levels. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have never been more frequent or destructive. Planet Earth is at a tipping point because of carbon dioxide emissions. Fracking is poisoning our air, water and climate. 97% of scientists agree. A clean renewable energy future is just around the corner.
Itâ€™s as if a chain of command, carefully coordinated process or alliance of ideological compatriots was operating behind the scenes to propagate these fables. This time, conspiracy theorists have gotten it right.
A major player in this process and alliance is one that most citizens and even businessmen and politicians have never heard of. InsideClimate News (ICN) http://insideclimatenews.org/ has been called "highly influential,â€ a "pioneer of nonprofit advocacy journalism,â€ the recipient of "prestigious awardsâ€ for "high-impact investigative storiesâ€ on important environmental issues.
The Washington Free Beacon http://freebeacon.com/issues/environmentalist-foundations-fund-anti-fossil-fuel-echo-chamber/, National Review http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428878/environmental-activism-advocacy-journalism-insideclimate-news and Energy in Depth http://energyindepth.org/national/disclosures-pull-back-curtain-funding-climate-investigation/ offer detailed and far less charitable assessments. Less friendly observers, they note, call ICN a "mouthpieceâ€ for extreme environmentalist groups, because it is run by and out of a deep-green public relations consultancy (Science First) and is funded almost exclusively by wealthy foundations that share its and the PR firmâ€™s anti-fossil fuel, pro-renewable energy, Bigger Government agenda. ICN was founded by David Sasoon, a true believer in catastrophic manmade climate change who wants to do all he can "to usher in the clean energy economy.â€
Even praise from its supporters underscores the dark side of this "influentialâ€ force in eco-journalism. Its approach is "advocacy,â€ not fairness, accuracy or balance. Its goal is to drive a monolithic, hard-line, environmentalist narrative and political agenda, with little suggestion that other perspectives even exist.
Some of its awards come from an organization that has itself become politicized and too closely allied with Big Green views and organizations: the Society of Environmental Journalists. They increasingly operate too much as mutual admiration societies and support groups, say outside observers.
ICN and its Science First alter ego received their 2007 startup grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, where Sasoon once served as a consultant. They now derive the bulk of their funding from the RBF, NEO Philanthropy (aka, Public Interest Projects), Marlisa Foundation and Park Foundation. These and other sugar daddies are covered in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staff report, which describes a "Billionaireâ€™s Clubâ€ of "left-wing millionaires and billionaires [which] directs and controls the far-left [US] environmental movement.â€
The same foundations also give major tax-exempt donations to the Sierra Club, Earthworks, NRDC, EarthJustice, the climate crisis coalition 350.org, and many other anti-coal, anti-drilling, anti-fracking, anti-Keystone pressure groups that together form the $10-billion-a-year US environmentalist industry.
ICN has active partnerships with the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel, Bloomberg News and other media organizations that help coordinate and disperse stories. The Times promotes the "dangerous manmade climate changeâ€ meme and refuses to print letters that reflect skeptical views.
The Associated Press has likewise become a reliable purveyor of manmade climate chaos stories. The Weather Channel and ICN teamed up in 2014 on a series of "investigative reportsâ€ that claimed hydraulic fracturing was causing serious environmental and human health problems in Texas.
The partners team up and coordinate to "have one group write on an issue, another quote them or link to them, and so on,â€ Media Research Center VP Dan Gainor explains. "It keeps going until they create this perception that thereâ€™s real concern over an issue, and it bubbles up to top liberal sites like Huffington Post, and from there into the traditional media,â€ which itself is too predisposed to the green narrative.
The foundations "have incorporated ostensibly dispassionate news outlets into their grant-making portfolios,â€ says the Free Beaconâ€™s Lachlan Markay, "creating what some describe as self-sustaining environmentalist echo chambers.â€
They make it look like widespread public concern and spontaneous grassroots action â€“ when in reality it is loud but small Astroturf activism, orchestrated by the ICN brigade and the foundations behind it.
InsideClimate News now brags about http://insideclimatenews.org/news/26042016/environmental-activists-campaign-exxon-climate-change-investigation-attorney-general-schneiderman its involvement in the extensive collusion among the leftist foundations, environmental pressure groups and state attorneys general that are devising, coordinating and advancing AG prosecutions of ExxonMobil, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other groups for alleged "racketeeringâ€ and "fraud,â€ to hold them "legally accountable for climate change denial.â€ http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2016/04/16/rico-for-government-climate-deniers-n2149120
The efforts "stretch back at least to 2012,â€ ICN notes, when a meeting was held in California to develop legal strategies. In late 2015, letters from several Democrat members of Congress called for investigating and prosecuting climate skeptics; the letters cited independent journalism "investigations by the Los Angeles Times and InsideClimate Newsâ€ to back up their request.
However, the intrepid Times and ICN investigators had conducted no investigation. They simply parroted and amplified "researchâ€ from a group of activist professors and students at the Columbia School of Journalism â€“ without disclosing who had funded the CSJ studies. Transparency for thee, but not for me.
It was George Sorosâ€™s Open Society Foundations, along with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Foundation, Energy Foundation, Lorana Sullivan Foundation and Tellus Mater Foundation â€“ all of which virulently oppose hydrocarbon production and actively promote climate change alarmism.
Emails subpoenaed by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute later revealed that many of the same environmentalist groups and lawyers met again in January 2016 at a secret meeting in the Rockefeller Family Fundâ€™s Manhattan offices. Yet another secret meeting was held in March 2016, between climate activists and state attorneys general â€“ hours before the AGs announced that they were launching RICO and other prosecutions of "climate skepticâ€ companies and think tanks. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/13/report-reveals-secret-meeting-by-environmentalists-to-target-exxon-oil-industry.html
The success of this campaign thus far, says ICN, has persuaded the activists to "step up efforts to pressure more attorneys general to investigate [more climate crisis skeptics] and sway public opinion, using op-eds, social media and rope-line questioning of [Republican] presidential candidates at campaign stops.â€
This collusion among activists, foundations and attorneys general seeks to silence, bankrupt and defund organizations that challenge their catechism of climate cataclysm. These conspirators want to deprive us of our constitutional rights to speak out on the exaggerated and fabricated science, the coordinated echo- chamber news stories, and the pressure group-driven policies that impair our livelihoods, living standards, health, welfare and environmental quality. We will not be intimidated or silenced.
As CFACTâ€™s new Climate Hustle film notes, manmade plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide has not replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven Earthâ€™s temperature, climate and weather.
The problem is not climate change. It is policies imposed in the name of preventing climate change.
Thatâ€™s why Climate Crisis, Inc. wants to silence and jail us. Just imagine how much more theyâ€™ll be foaming at the mouth after throngs go to ClimateHustle.com and buy tickets for its May 2 one-night-only showing in hundreds of theaters across the United States.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.
Answer me quickly; what is an atoll? Beep! Times up!
An atoll is an island formed from coral. When an undersea volcano pushes up a volcanic island, corals begin building a reef around the volcanic island. Eventually they build right up out of the water, and get covered with dirt, and eventually colonized by plants. The volcanoe itself drops out and what is left is a circular island with water in the center - a lagoon. The south Pacific is dotted with atolls, tiny islands that sit just a couple of feet above sea level.
See more on coral reef formation here and read about seamounts and guyots here.
That is important, remember it.
Writing in The U.K. Spectator James Dellingpole - Britain's analogue to Tim Ball - writes a devastating column about the so-called "ocean Acidification" and how it is simply another scare tactic, one designed to save the old Global Warming hysteria.
From the article:
"First referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, it has since been endorsed by scientists from numerous learned institutions including the Royal Society, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the IPCC. Even the great David Attenborough â€” presenter of the Great Barrier Reef series â€” has vouched for its authenticity: â€˜If the temperature rises up by two degrees and the acidity by a measurable amount, lots of species of coral will die out. Quite what happens then is anybodyâ€™s guess. But it wonâ€™t be good.â€™
No indeed. Ocean acidification is the terrifying threat whereby all that man-made CO2 weâ€™ve been pumping into the atmosphere may react with the sea to form a sort of giant acid bath. First it will kill off all the calcified marine life, such as shellfish, corals and plankton. Then it will destroy all the species that depend on it â€” causing an almighty mass extinction which will wipe out the fishing industry and turn our oceans into a barren zone of death.
Or so runs the scaremongering theory. The reality may be rather more prosaic. Ocean acidification â€” the evidence increasingly suggests â€” is a trivial, misleadingly named, and not remotely worrying phenomenon which has been hyped up beyond all measure for political, ideological and financial reasons."
And indeed "Ocean Acidificication" - a horrible misnomer as the oceans are alkaline and not acidic and won't be made acidic outside of geological ages if that were possible at all - has become the new rallying cry for the Gang Green. Remember Al Gore's poem?
Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve
Well, this pastiche gives you some perspective; Gore thought ocean acidification would dissolve "Neptune's bones" as though it had become battery acid. Why would he - or anyone - think that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from 2 to three molecules per ten thousand molecules of air would somehow acidify the oceans? The oceans have been there a long time; through periods of much higher atmospheric co2, through cataclysmic volcanic events, through asteroid strikes.
And it certainly makes no sense in light of this 2014 paper which demonstrated that increasing temperatures increases ph rather than reduces it, a result of co2 outgassing:
"A paper published today in Climate of the Past reconstructs water pH and temperature from a lake in central Japan over the past 280,000 years and clearly shows that pH increases [becomes more basic or alkaline] due to warmer temperatures, and vice-versa, becomes more acidic [or "acidified" if you prefer] due to cooling temperatures. This finding is the opposite of the false assumptions behind the "ocean acidification" scare, but is compatible with the basic chemistry of Henry's Law and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans with warming.
Thus, if global warming resumes after the "pause," ocean temperatures will rise along with CO2 outgassing, which will make the oceans more basic, not acidic. You simply cannot have it both ways:
"Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.
Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing â€“ insignificant â€“ ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense.
In addition, the paper shows that pH of the lake varied over a wide range from ~7.5 to 8.8 simply depending on the temperature of each month of the year. As the "acidification" alarmists like to say, a variation of 1.3 pH units is equivalent to a 1995% change in hydrogen ions due to the logarithmic pH scale, just over a single year! Summer months are of course associated with warmer temperatures and more alkaline, higher pH and winter months associated with colder temperatures and much more "acidified" lower pH values. Note also how pH varies widely over ~7.5 to 8.8 simply dependent on the depth at a given time, because colder deeper waters can hold higher partial pressures of CO2 than the warmer surface waters:"
And, as i pointed out at the beginning of this essay, most islands are ultimately the result of volcanism, with reefs doing just fine around them despite the fact that they are lowering ph in the vicinity.
"Howard Browman, a marine scientist for 35 years, has published a review in the ICES Journal of Marine Science of all the papers published on the subject. His verdict could hardly be more damning. The methodology used by the studies was often flawed; contrary studies suggesting that ocean acidification wasnâ€™t a threat had sometimes had difficulty finding a publisher. There was, he said, an â€˜inherent biasâ€™ in scientific journals which predisposed them to publish â€˜doom and gloom storiesâ€™.
Ocean acidification theory appears to have been fatally flawed almost from the start. In 2004, two NOAA scientists, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine, produced a chart showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels. But then, just over a year ago, Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with 30 yearsâ€™ experience, noticed while researching his PhD that they had omitted some key information. Their chart only started in 1988 but, as Wallace knew, there were records dating back to at least 100 years before. So why had they ignored the real-world evidence in favour of computer-modelled projections?
When Wallace plotted a chart of his own, incorporating all the available data, covering the period from 1910 to the present, his results were surprising: there has been no reduction in oceanic pH levels in the last -century.
Even if the oceans were â€˜acidifyingâ€™, though, it wouldnâ€™t be a disaster for a number of reasons â€” as recently outlined in a paper by Patrick Moore for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. First, marine species that calcify have survived through millions of years when CO2 was at much higher levels; second, they are more than capable of adapting â€” even in the short term â€” to environmental change; third, seawater has a large buffering capacity which prevents dramatic shifts in pH; fourth, if oceans do become warmer due to â€˜climate changeâ€™, the effect will be for them to â€˜outgasâ€™ CO2, not absorb more of it.
Finally, and perhaps most damningly, Moore quotes a killer analysis conducted by Craig Idso of all the studies which have been done on the effects of reduced pH levels on marine life. The impact on calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units (beyond what is considered a plausible reduction this century) is beneficial, not damaging. Marine life has nothing whatsoever to fear from ocean acidification."
In point of fact a reducing modest alkalinity level would be beneficial to plant growth, thus enriching the ecosystem. More plants mean more fish, more shellfish, more sea life.
The volume of Earth's oceans is estimated at 1,335,000,000 cubic kilometers, according to NOAA. We are told that Man is the primary producer of carbon going into the oceans. For example:
"Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes over the decade 2002â€“2011 was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.) During this time, the average annual total release of was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually."
Scary stuff indeed, if one believes it all! But is it really what it seems?
"The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux"
"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.
As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease. If the sun stays quiet for 30 or 40 years, ocean surface temperatures will fall far enough to reverse the CO2 rise, the globe will enter a new little ice age, and things will get really interesting."
And the reality is we don't know how much co2 volcanoes put in the atmosphere every year. See this paper by geologist Timothy Casey.
This paper gives us a list of more famous volcanic eruptions:
Year Volcano Mean Sulphurous Output Source Est. Carbon output during year(s) of eruption
1883AD Krakatoa 38 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 26.14 MtCpa
1815AD Tambora 70 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 48.16 MtCpa
1783AD Laki 130 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 89.44 MtCpa
1600AD Huaynaputina 48 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 33.02 MtCpa
1452AD Kuwae 150 MtH2SO4pa Witter & Self (2007) 67.40 MtCpa
934AD Eldja 110 MtSO2 Shinohara (2008) 75.68 MtCpa
1645BC Minoa 125 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 86.00 MtCpa
circa 71,000BP Toba 1100 MtH2SO4pa Zielenski et al. (1996) 494.24 MtCpa
Notice how all but one of the individual annual volcanogenic carbon outputs, estimated above, dwarf the global subaerial volcanogenic carbon outputs estimated by both Gerlach (1991) & Kerrick (2001). Even the Morner & Etiope (2002) subaerial estimate (163 MtCpa) is shaken by most of these figures and dwarfed by one"
This means that each of these volcanic eruptions dwarfs the annual anthropogenic output.
Dr. Casey points out:
"As we have seen, Gerlach (2011) says precisely the opposite. However, as Cardellini et al. (2011) point out:
"Large amounts of CO2 is also discharged by soil diffuse degassing at the quiescent volcanoes."
It seems that Gerlach (2011) drew his interpretation from a preference for the "global" "magmatic" carbon dioxide emission estimate of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998) which was devoloped from the generalisation of isotope ratios across provinces of varied geochemistry. This multimodal generalisation, as I have shown in the example of Laki (Section 2, above), can be spectacularly inaccurate. Gerlach reports this figure in the following contrastive statement:
"The projected 2010 anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of 35 gigatons per year is 135 times greater than the 0.26-gigaton- per-year preferred estimate for volcanoes."
In the units I am using here, that translates to a "preferred" estimate of worldwide volcanic carbon emission at 0.071 GtCpa. At this point, I think it worth contrasting this with a quote from Cardellini et al. (2011) who are actually engaged in some real research:
"Quantitative estimates provided a regional CO2 flux of about 9 Gt/y affecting the region (62000 km2), an amount globally relevant, being ~ 10% of the present-day global CO2 discharge from subaerial volcanoes."
That 9GtCO2pa translates to 2.45 GtCpa for just one region, which is more than 34 times the latest personally "preferred" "global" estimate offered by Gerlach (2011). This statement, by Cardellini et al. (2011) seems to originate with Chiodini et al. (2004) which states:
"The total CO2 released by TRSD and CDS (2.1 x 1011 mol/y) is globally significant, being ~10% of the estimated present-day total CO2 discharge from subaerial volcanoes of the Earth [Kerrick, 2001]."
Sic. (The incorrect use of square brackets, in this quote, is not mine. This error is probably on the part of the publisher.)
This figure, by Chiodini et al. (2004) translates to 0.0025 GtCpa which is about 10% of the lower figure for the estimate of Kerrick (2001). This is suggestive that the figure published in Cardellini et al. (2011) may have been misreported (unless, of course, it has since been revised). Assuming that the figure has, indeed, been misreported, we will consider the source paper. It would seem that the figure offered by Gerlach (2011) is more in line with this figure published by Chiodini et al. (2004). However, when we return to the to the point made by both Cardellini et al. (2011) and Chiodini et al. (2004) a very important question is raised. "
And so much of this is a result of undersea volcanoes - which should absolutely destroy the "fragile" coral reef systems, yet we don't see problems with coral around these volcanoes.
Money and power, power and money. Those are the things that drive the climate change alarmism. The science is based almost entirley on computer projections and "we can't afford not to" rhetoric. There is an old maxim among lawyers that you argue the facts when they are with you, argue the law when the facts are against you, and attack the opposition when both are against you. Now we are in the phase where the global warming crowd are trying to use RICO laws against "deniars" because they have largely lost the argument. We are not seeing thermogeddon; on the contrary, planetary temperatures have remained largely stable for the last twenty some-odd years - in violation of all of the climate models. So they went to their fallback, which is proving equally weak.
We have been treated to decades of hysteria and scares, going back to Thomas Malthus, who started the apocalyptic science predictions - predictions that always seem to turn out wrong when the theory meets the real world. We've had pollution scares,food shortage scares, alar, dioxin, global cooling, the populaton bomb, ozone depletion, Rachel Carson's "silent spring" DDT scare, and now global warming, the mandarin of pseudo-scientific horror. It's not that they always turn out wrong, but so often people are willing to see the worst where there is no reason. To quote the Bible God is really in control. Sadly, too many people want to be God and believe in the power of Man the Most High, believe we have godlike powers. We don't, and it seems that every so often we must relearn that lesson.
39 queries taking 0.1941 seconds, 287 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.