It's that past, present, and future thingy ("Scientists have discovered that 'the present' has always existed, but some of them are not sure about 'the past' and 'the future'." -Dredd).
This scene is part of the "DNA" of civilizations, including our own:
"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown." ...
"In the Study Toynbee examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human history, and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders. Civilizations declined when their leaders stopped responding creatively, and the civilizations then sank owing to the sins of nationalism, militarism, and the tyranny of a despotic minority."
(How To Identify The Despotic Minority). There is the proverb "where there is no vision the people perish" which addresses the notion of "vision" in the sense of being able to conceive of and "feel" what the future will be by analyzing what is or is not being done in the present (The Thursday Thought).
We don't have to "let it all hang out" because we don't have ultimate "let" power ... if we "wait to see what happens".
We have to know the implications of present actions and know what "knowledge" is composed of if we are to say "we have vision" (The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?).
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
Ode to the vision of the U.S. gummit (it's their thing) ...
"The press is the enemy of the people" in North Korea, China, Russia, The Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and other right-wing authoritarian countries (How To Identify The Despotic Minority, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).
The authoritarian right wing president of the USA has the same Orwellian, wrong headed opinion.
He speaks evil of fellow Americans in concert with mass murdering North Korean "ideological lover Kimmy."
His current corrupt leader of the Department of Just Us (DOJ) has evidently cleared the way for Robert Swan Mueller III (RSM III) to speak briefly at the newly evolved Department of Hoaxes (DOH), but to take no questions afterwards, thus, today among other things we will see how much Tweeter has perverted, or not, RSM III.
In other words, we may see whether or not the two years of public criticism, obstruction, and character assassination of the Special Counsel has taken down yet another official.
We already know that it has taken down many American minds who now support Professor Cruel of Trump University (High Percent of GOP Support Trump).
Trump’s appointments, according to interviews with experts and 5th Circuit practitioners, have begun to shift an already right-leaning court toward a more monolithic brand of conservatism. These are judges, experts say, whose views are less hidden and whose outcomes are easier to predict. Compared with their colleagues appointed by other Republican presidents, their philosophies are less idiosyncratic; so far, they have seldom surprised. And as their numbers swell, the 5th Circuit is teetering toward a tipping point — one that might, in the next close vote, mark a monumental shift on a political issue that divides the country. “Anybody out there that runs a group that litigates will notice that vote and is going to be thinking about it,” said David Coale, an appellate lawyer who frequently appears before the 5th Circuit. “It isn’t just that they’re conservative, though they are conservative. They’re waving a big flag.” “A rightward push”
In an ongoing case in a federal district court, the judge has set a hearing on the merits of the case:
U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup, who is hearing a suit brought by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco against five big oil corporations, ordered a historic tutorial in which both parties will have a chance to present their view of the science behind climate change, the McClatchy Washington Bureau reported March 7.
"This will be the closest that we have seen to a trial on climate science in the United States, to date," Michael Burger, head of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told the Bureau.
The hearing marks the most recent novel development in an already groundbreaking lawsuit. As EcoWatch reported, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to sue the fossil fuel industry over climate change when it filed with Oakland against the five largest fossil-fuel producing corporations in September 2017.
The cities claim the companies named in the suit—Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell—"have known for decades that fossil fuel-driven global warming and accelerated sea level rise posed a catastrophic risk to human beings." They are therefore suing the companies for the costs of adapting to the climate challenge, such as the building of sea walls.
Meanwhile, I am still wrestling with the data issues in bottom pressure record usage, and hope to post on it soon (The Ghost-Water Constant - 10).
UPDATE: "As climate litigation heats up, a judge’s climate science tutorial puts the fossil fuel industry in an awkward position with the science deniers it once funded" (The Climate Is Changing For Climate Skeptics).
At that time, among other things, I quoted a notable historian who at one time in modern history was the most quoted historian on some general interest subjects.
Nevertheless, he fell out of favor when he began to criticize current civilization.
After he had studied the rise and fall of twenty-six previous civilizations on Earth, he (the way I describe his criticism) began to indicate that our current civilization still had the "genes" of those civilizations that had gone down in flames ("committed suicide" or were "murdered").
And that is not good, because the picture he painted is looking more and more like an accurate portrayal of what we face now.
Here is a quote from his writings, along with a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica about his work:
"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown." [Toynbee] ...
"In the Study Toynbee examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human history, and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders. Civilizations declined when their leaders stopped responding creatively, and the civilizations then sank owing to the sins of nationalism, militarism, and the tyranny of a despotic minority. Unlike Spengler in his The Decline of the West, Toynbee did not regard the death of a civilization as inevitable, for it may or may not continue to respond to successive challenges. Unlike Karl Marx, he saw history as shaped by spiritual, not economic forces." [Encyclopedia Britannica]
There are several facets, manifestations, and definitions relating to the concept of nationalism.
I want to keep in line with the characteristics of nationalism that Toynbee (and others) saw as self destructive to civilizations down through time (“The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson).
So, for now let's start with a description of American Nationalism as manifested in its current 21st Century characteristics:
"When the nation demands the supreme loyalty of its citizens, the freedom of the individual may be sacrificed to the welfare of the state. In this elevation of the state there is the concomitant denigration of the outsider and the temptation to advance the nation at the expense of other nations. As nationalism evolved in the nineteenth century, it assumed the ugly forms of imperialism, racism, and totalitarianism; it helped to stimulate world wars in the twentieth century."
(Defining "American" Nationalism, Encylopedia, emphasis added). Current acid tests which fit that description (to name a few) in US culture are: whether or not you believe that the USA is "exceptional," whether or not you want to keep others out via border walls, whether or not you favor halting immigration; whether or not you want to care for those with health needs, whether or not you would favor engaging in nuclear war, and whether or not you elevate national economics over the environment necessary for all life to survive,
III. The Militarism Gene
A Canadian professor who passed away last fall wrote:
The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain.
Known and documented from information in the public domaine including Annual Reports of the US Congress, we have a fairly good understanding of the strucuture of US military expenditure, the network of US military bases and the shape of this US military-strategic configuration in different regions of the World.
The objective of this article is to build a summary profile of the World network of military bases, which are under the jurisdiction and/or control of the US. The spatial distribution of these military bases will be examined together with an analysis of the multibillion dollar annual cost of their activities.
In a second section of this article, Worldwide popular resistance movements directed against US military bases and their various projects will be outlined. In a further article we plan to analyze the military networks of other major nuclear superpowers including the United Kingdom, France and Russia.
I. The Military Bases
Military bases are conceived for training purposes, preparation and stockage of military equipment, used by national armies throughout the World. They are not very well known in view of the fact that they are not open to the public at large. Even though they take on different shapes, according to the military function for which they were established; they can broadly be classified under four main categories :
a) Air Force Bases (see photos 1 and 2);
b) Army or Land Bases;
c) Navy Bases and
d) Communication and Spy Bases. ...
The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.
In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War'”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.
The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.
In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.
These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).
This suicidal state of affairs is not what the founders envisioned:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Those truths are well established.
"A recent study of World Health Organization data published in the American Journal of Medicine that found that, among high-income nations, 91 percent of children younger than 15 who were killed by bullets lived in the United States. And the trends are only growing more dire. On average, two dozen children are shot every day in the United States, and in 2016 more youths were killed by gunfire — 1,637 — than during any previous year this millennium."
(Washington Post, emphasis added). The despotic minority won the last national election with the help of our preznit's favorite leader's operatives.
It is a coup that, like slow moving glaciers (see video below), moves so slow that the import of the movement cannot be detected by the everyday "nothing to see here folks" narrative (A Tale of Coup Cities, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13).
The body politic has been sleeping through a right-wing take over of the judiciary, the last bastion of civil liberties, moving like a slow train towards downtown authoritarianism (The Authoritarians, by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba , PDF).
In the first post of this series I quoted a Newsweek article that among other things, pointed out:
For the past quarter century, the courts have been conservative, but so has the government. Few new sweeping regulatory schemes became law. Now the Roberts Court has tilted markedly more conservative than the Rehnquist Court—at the same time the voters elected a more liberal set of politicians than they had in half a century. Republican presidents appointed seven of nine Supreme Court justices, as well as two thirds of the federal appeals judges who make most key rulings.
(Newsweek article, pointed out in Here Come De Conservative Judges, 3/16/09). As the D.C. world turns toward worse and worse choices as it moves along Highway 61 towards more wars, the judicial branch situation gets worse:
President Donald Trump has nominated more unqualified judicial appointees than any other president so quickly into his first term, a whopping four out of 58, according to the nation's preeminent legal group.
The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee of the Federal Judiciary, which has been evaluating judicial appointments since the 1950s, has assessed 53 of Trump's 58 nominees and found four "not qualified."
“It’s certainly unprecedented,” said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond law school and expert in judicial nominations.
(NewsWeek, Trump Is Nominating Unqualified Judges). The same magazine is still pointing out the grave danger and the congress is still approving them as if this is all business as usual.
In this series I have discussed the slow-moving coup in the remaining branch of government, the Judiciary.
The coup of the judiciary has been taking place for a decade or so.
We saw "the alt-right" take off their clothes to become quite "naked" (obvious) in the unprecedented Republican obstructionism events around the Obama appointment of the leading judge from the Federal Appellate Court for the District of Columbia to the U.S. Supreme Court (Judge Merrick Garland).
I mention the alt-right becoming obvious (or naked), because the coup (like the gerrymandering coup, the taking over of state legislatures, and governorships coups) have until now all been underground, well planned out, and executed surreptitiously.
As I wrote in a previous post:
"Here's the core constitutional fact: a progressive president and Congress now face a conservative judiciary, for the first time since 1937. Obama's ambitious agenda, if enacted, must go before federal courts—where judges can rewrite or strike down key provisions."
(Here Come De Conservative Judges, 2009 quoting Newsweek, emphasis added). In other words, not much was said of it back then because the "clothing" was still on.
That will change beginning in January of 2017, 80 years after the judiciary became more liberal in 1937 (the New Deal era).
To begin with, a critical Supreme Court Justice, and about a hundred federal judges need to be appointed (CBS News, WaPo, Newser).
That is twice what Obama started out with.
As I said in another series that looked at this ongoing judiciary coup:
This case is brought at a time when the scenario described by Col. Wilkerson (even before he knew of the election results) is "extremely dangerous" (see first video below !).
Add to that the intention of the Republican Party to load the Supreme Court with climate change deniers, and it adds up to an increased likelihood of a constitutional crisis in our near future.
Unless the W Direction is changed, The American Children will eventually lose this case in the alt-right supreme court, and who knows what else.
The first post in this series focused on a lawsuit by climate scientists in a federal court in the state of Oregon.
They had broken through the first obstacles thrown at them by climate change deniers in cahoots with the Obama Administration.
At some coming phase, they will have to face the Trumposphere denialism, in a sicker, less kind, nation.
II. Foreground
In today's post, I want to talk about another lawsuit brought by another climate scientist that was not brought in a federal court, but rather was filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia (Complaint).
That libel complaint was filed by plaintiff Dr. Michael Mann against defendants The National Review, Inc., The Competitive Enterprise Institute, bloggers Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn.
Oh how, when served with the complaint, they scorned the case at The Lettuce & Bacon Talk (BLT) and The Volkswagen Conspiracy blogs (VW I, VW II).
The defendants, evidently encouraged by the blogging bloviators' refusal to retract their libelous writings, moved to dismiss the complaint as an infringement of their First Amendment rights.
They evidently do not understand that, outside the Trumposphere, the First Amendment does not protect low energy brain waves that take the form of libel or slander.
When the appellate court ruled yesterday, it said that Dr. Mann can take his case to the jury:
Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial of the special motions to dismiss the defamation claims based on those articles and remand the case for additional proceedings in the trial court with respect to these claims.
(Appellate Court Decision, p. 105). First will be the discovery phase of the litigation, which will bring their libelous brain waves into the under oath zone, which changes one's countenance.
IV. Conclusion
Congratulations to Dr. Mann and his competent lawyers, and may the jury sock it to the bloviating climate change deniers !
Once upon a time scientists explored events and described "laws" (e.g. NASA Cassini).
The law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, and other natural laws were and still are within their province.
This concept was not altogether alien to the civil laws of cities, states, or nations.
That is known as comity.
As it turns out, one very basic reason for that comity is due to the common sense recognition that law was back then, and still is, a simple matter of sorting out who had or has "the say":
“The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right ... It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. ”
(Marbury v Madison). That province of the judicial branch of the U.S. Government includes hearing the words and reading the works of professional scientists supplied as facts in various cases:
Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes
have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of “greenhouse gases,” a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA “shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1). The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent . . . , including any physical, chemical . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air.” §7602(g). EPA ultimately denied the petition, reasoning that (1) the Act does not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, and (2) even if it had the authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards, it would have been unwise to do so at that time because a causal link between greenhouse gases and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not unequivocally established. ... Massachusetts and other state and local governments, sought review in the D. C. Circuit [... which held...] that the EPA Administrator properly exercised his discretion in denying the rulemaking petition. ... [Supreme Court Conclusion:] The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
As with cases involving speeding laws, when we are stopped for exceeding the speed limit, it is of no moment to tell the police officer that we do not believe in speeding laws.
Nevertheless, there are various underpinnings of just that within the ongoing political discourse coming out of the new York White House (Fig. 3) following the coup parade (A Tale of Coup Cities, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13).
The Administrative Department has lost its way (You Are Here, "mad bull lost your way" - Rolling Stones @ Gimme Shelter), and in the tradition of the W Direction (The W Direction = The Perilous Path), now thinks it is the one with the say to make the laws rather than administer the laws.
They don't believe in any of that stinkin' clean air or stinkin' water jargon ("so what if I was exceeding the speed limit, I don't believe in speeding laws officer").
Not only that, they have even sent invaders into the realm of those who are required to enforce the law of the land.
Yes, and they are doing that nonsense even though the supreme law of the land (ruled as such by the Supreme Court) is contrary to their beliefs.
But, ignoring the legislative law of the congress, and the case law of the judicial branch of U.S. Government, they hazard this:
President-elect Donald Trump's Energy Department transition team sent the agency a memo this week asking for the names of people who have worked on climate change and the professional society memberships of lab workers, alarming employees and advisors.
The memo sent to the Energy Department on Tuesday and seen by Reuters on Friday, contains 74 questions including a request for a list of all department employees and contractors who attended the annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within the last five years.
UPDATE: The McCarthyite request was rescinded after the DOI refused the request and congress members wrote them to say it was an abuse of authority (NewsMax).
To the contrary, I am an alarmist of the Paul Revere sort, holding two lanterns aloft while exclaiming "one if by land, two if by sea".
Anyway, it boils down to them wanting a list of the names of government employees who obey the law in "a government of laws, and not of men" so that those obedient government employees can be punished (The Queens of Stalingrad - 2).
After viewing the videos at the bottom of today's post by Col. L. Wilkerson and R. Admiral Tilley, I chose this series.
II. The Case
Seemingly, in stark contrast to what is generally thought, some kids, some activists, and a scientist ("The American Children"), sued President Obama and Humble Oil-Qaeda ("POHO") in a federal court in Oregon:
"Plaintiffs in this civil rights action are a group of young people between the ages of eight and nineteen ("youth plaintiffs"); Earth Guardians, an association of young environmental activists; and Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations. Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies. Plaintiffs allege defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide ("CO2") produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would "significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia." ... Despite that knowledge, plaintiffs assert defendants, "[b]y their exercise of sovereign authority over our country's atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, ... permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels, ... deliberately allow[ing] atmospheric CO2 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history[.]" ... Although many different entities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, plaintiffs aver defendants bear "a higher degree of responsibility than any other individual, entity, or country" for exposing plaintiffs to the dangers of climate change. ... This is no ordinary lawsuit. Plaintiffs challenge the policies, acts, and omissions of the President of the United States, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation ("DOT"), the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")."
(JULIANA et al. v U.S.). Right away POHO moved the federal court in Oregon to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The case was, as is typical, referred to a Magistrate Judge who recommended that the court deny the POHO motion and allow The American Children to proceed with the case.
The court held, among other things, that:
"The public trust doctrine defines inherent aspects of sovereignty. The Social Contract theory, which heavily influenced Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers, provides that people possess certain inalienable rights and that governments were established by consent of the governed for the purpose of securing those rights. Accordingly, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did not create the rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness - the documents are, instead, vehicles for protecting and promoting those already-existing rights. ... Plaintiffs' claims rest "directly on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Davis, 442 U.S. at 243 (1979); see also Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980) ("[T]he victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent have a right to recover damages against the official in federal court despite the absence of any statute conferring such a right.") They may, therefore, be asserted in federal court. ... I ADOPT Judge Coffin's Findings & Recommendation (doc. 68), as elaborated in this opinion. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 27) and Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 19) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED."
(ibid, JULIANA et al. v U.S.). The case will now proceed to the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit if the POHO defendants decide to take an interlocutory appeal at this time, instead of letting it go to trial.
III. The Ramifications
This case is brought at a time when the scenario described by Col. Wilkerson (even before he knew of the election results) is "extremely dangerous" (see first video below !).
Add to that the intention of the Republican Party to load the Supreme Court with climate change deniers, and it adds up to an increased likelihood of a constitutional crisis in our near future.
Unless the W Direction is changed, The American Children will eventually lose this case in the alt-right supreme court, and who knows what else.
IV. Conclusion
I am reminded of a quote in a previous Dredd Blog post:
"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."
Notice this quote from the Security arm of the Director of the National Intelligence Agencies (DNI):
"This memorandum was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was coordinated with the US Intelligence Community.
Long-term changes in climate will produce more extreme weather events and put greater stress on critical Earth systems like oceans, freshwater, and biodiversity. These in turn will almost certainly have significant effects, both direct and indirect, across social, economic, political, and security realms during the next 20 years. These effects will be all the more pronounced as people continue to concentrate in climate-vulnerable locations, such as coastal areas, water-stressed regions, and ever-growing cities."
(Report RE Climate Change, cf. Same in PDF). That memorandum mentions sea level rise several times, in the context of a threat to national security.
Fig. 2 Ocean Temperatures
Both the military and the spies have known of the dangers to national security for at least a decade or so (Global Climate & Homeland Insecurity, 2).
"We" know that Humble Oil-Qaeda, now known as ExxonMobil, has known that it has been responsible for sea level rise for a long time.
That is, Humble Oil-Qaeda knows what causes sea level rise.
In 1962 they even put a centerfold, two page advertisement in Life magazine bragging about it:
“This giant glacier has remained unmelted for centuries ... Yet, the petroleum energy Humble [now ExxonMobil] supplies — if converted into heat — could melt it at the rate of 80 tons each second!
(Humble Oil-Qaeda). Thus, if sea level rise is caused by ice sheet and glacial melt (a national security threat according to the national security agency memo quoted above in Section I), then Humble Oil-Qaeda is itself a threat to national security.
Fig. 3 Sea Level
Wouldn't that be a wake-up call for them to begin to avoid that issue, by diverting the focus?
And wouldn't that explain why Oil-Qaeda has been spreading their word through the warming science commentariat no less (The Warming Science Commentariat, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) ?
I mean spreading the word that the ocean expands from sunlight hitting the sunlight zone (Epipelagic Magic).
Don't laugh, they have spread this "magic," like they have spread pollution of the ocean depths, into the deepest scientific depths:
"As the ocean warms, the density decreases and thus even at constant mass the volume of the ocean increases. This thermal expansion (or steric sea level rise) occurs at all ocean temperatures and is one of the major contributors to sea level changes during the 20th and 21st centuries" (IPCC).
Fig. 4 Ocean Temperatures
"About half of the past century's rise in sea level is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space" (National Geographic).
"Rising temperatures are warming ocean waters, which expand as the temperature increases. This thermal expansion was the main driver of global sea level rise for 75 - 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution" (Union of Concerned Scientists)..
" ... global sea level rises 0.26 m by 2100, and 0.56 m by 2199 through steric [thermal] expansion; " (Journal of Physical Oceanography, PDF).
The graphs at Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 concern the West Coast of the U.S.eh?
The graphs at Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 concern the East Coast of the U.S.eh?
The data used to generate them, as usual, is from the World Ocean Database (WOD) and the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) database.
If thermal expansion is the MAJOR cause of sea level rise, why is sea level falling in those zones as ocean temperatures warm (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) ?
And why is sea level rising in the zones where the temperatures are falling (Fig. 3, Fig. 4) ?
Here is an analysis of the Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 data (WOD zones):
WOD Zone: 7716 (all figures in deg. C)
Concerning temperature trends, there
were 43 upward & 54 downward trends.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = -0.51873
200-400m = -0.0067689
400-600m = 0.226408
600-800m = -0.09294
800-1000m = -1.82532
1000-3000m = -0.365015
Net change for 6 levels: -2.58236 Years involved: 1971 -> 2015 (44 yrs)
Average change per year:
(-2.58236 ÷ 44): -0.05869
WOD Zone: 7715 (all figures in deg. C)
Concerning temperature trends, there
were 66 upward & 60 downward trends.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = 0.223065
200-400m = -0.199512
400-600m = 0.118274
600-800m = 0.089372
800-1000m = -0.00988184
1000-3000m = 0.011626
>3000m = 0.007874
Net change for 7 levels: 0.240818 Years involved: 1971 -> 2015 (44 yrs)
Average change per year:
(0.240818 ÷ 44): 0.00547313
WOD Zone: 7616 (all figures in deg. C)
Concerning temperature trends, there
were 22 upward & 15 downward trends.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = 2.25208
Net change for 1 levels: 2.25208 Years involved: 1974 -> 2015 (41 yrs)
Average change per year:
(2.25208 ÷ 41): 0.0549288
WOD Zone: 7516 (all figures in deg. C)
Concerning temperature trends, there
were 106 upward & 118 downward trends.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = -0.05813
200-400m = -0.46003
400-600m = -0.21572
600-800m = -0.28918
800-1000m = -0.29733
1000-3000m = -0.38789
>3000m = -0.02305
Net change for 7 levels: -1.73133 Years involved: 1974 -> 2016 (42 yrs)
Average change per year:
(-1.73133 ÷ 42): -0.0412221
WOD Zone: 7515 (all figures in deg. C)
Concerning temperature trends, there
were 107 upward & 120 downward trends.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = 2.1308
200-400m = 0.02524
400-600m = 0.25607
600-800m = 0.37842
800-1000m = 0.3559
1000-3000m = 0.41773
>3000m = 0.00464
Net change for 7 levels: 3.5688 Years involved: 1967 -> 2016 (49 yrs)
Average change per year:
(3.5688 ÷ 49): 0.0728327
WOD Zone: 7514 (all figures in deg. C)
Concerning temperature trends, there
were 156 upward & 148 downward trends.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = 2.85966
200-400m = 0.2249
400-600m = 0.22225
600-800m = 0.20276
800-1000m = 0.15983
1000-3000m = -0.18921
>3000m = -0.06869
Net change for 7 levels: 3.4115 Years involved: 1967 -> 2016 (49 yrs)
Average change per year:
(3.4115 ÷ 49): 0.0696224
WOD Zone: 7513 (all figures in deg. C)
Concerning temperature trends, there
were 113 upward & 115 downward trends.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = 2.71698
200-400m = 0.18326
400-600m = -0.48497
600-800m = 0.22401
800-1000m = 0.16605
1000-3000m = 0.24659
Net change for 6 levels: 3.05192 Years involved: 1967 -> 2016 (49 yrs)
Average change per year:
(3.05192 ÷ 49): 0.0622841
WOD Zone: 7512 (all figures in deg. C)
Concerning temperature trends, there
were 108 upward & 118 downward trends.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = 0.41775
200-400m = 1.46936
400-600m = 0.73452
600-800m = -1.10376
800-1000m = -0.01924
1000-3000m = -1.02517
Net change for 6 levels: 0.47346 Years involved: 1966 -> 2015 (49 yrs)
Average change per year:
(0.47346 ÷ 49): 0.00966245
WOD Zone: 7412 (all figures in deg. C)
Concerning temperature trends, there
were 138 upward & 146 downward trends.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = 0.0926
200-400m = 0.83028
400-600m = 0.45895
600-800m = 0.23522
800-1000m = 0.24281
1000-3000m = -0.28187
Net change for 6 levels: 1.57799 Years involved: 1966 -> 2016 (50 yrs)
Average change per year:
(1.57799 ÷ 50): 0.0315598
WOD Zone: 7312 (all figures in deg. C)
Concerning temperature trends, there
were 113 upward & 117 downward trends.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = -0.7783
200-400m = 0.46787
400-600m = 0.33146
600-800m = -0.1454
800-1000m = -0.25826
1000-3000m = -2.26463
>3000m = 0.05971
Net change for 7 levels: -2.58755 Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)
Average change per year:
(-2.58755 ÷ 55): -0.0470464
WOD Zone: 7311 (all figures in deg. C)
Concerning temperature trends, there
were 85 upward & 79 downward trends.
Net changes per level were:
0-200m = 1.7902
200-400m = -0.04136
400-600m = -0.01788
600-800m = -0.44997
800-1000m = 0.07329
1000-3000m = 0.97109
>3000m = -0.03354
Net change for 7 levels: 2.29183 Years involved: 1969 -> 2016 (47 yrs)
Average change per year:
(2.29183 ÷ 47): 0.0487623
Combined averages for 11 total WOD Zones
(temperatures are in deg. C)
Concerning change trends, the mean average
was 96 upward & 99 downward trends.
Average changes per depth level were:
0-200m = 1.01163
200-400m = 0.226658
400-600m = 0.148124
600-800m = -0.0864971
800-1000m = -0.128377
1000-3000m = -0.260614
>3000m = -0.00482327
Average change, all 7 levels: 0.906105
Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)
Average annual combined change:
(0.906105 ÷ 55): 0.0164746 C per year
IV. So Why Does The Citizenry Have To Sue Humble Oil-Qaeda?
Gotta try something?
In this context, historically the government through the Judicial Branch has protected Oil-Qaeda when it has been sued, because:
Here's the core constitutional fact: a progressive president and Congress now face a conservative judiciary, for the first time since 1937. Obama's ambitious agenda, if enacted, must go before federal courts—where judges can rewrite or strike down key provisions.
(A Case of Big Oil vs. Climate Change, 2). In that case the judges voted to have an en banc hearing, then recused themselves so that the case could not be heard (the judicially honest thing to do was recuse before, not after).
In the Oil-Qaeda oriented 5th circuit (covering oil states like Texas) most of the judges in the federal courts once lawyered for or are sympathetic to Oil-Qaeda.
Thus, they are the majority in (at least) one of the branches of government.
Maybe in Boston, where the runaways from England landed (hey pilgrim!), there will be a different result (CLV v Humble Oil-Qaeda) ?
Not likely.
V. The Problem Is Psychological,
Not Economic, Not Legal, Not Political
I will close with a quote from some of Sigmund's works:
If the evolution of civilization has such a far reaching similarity with the development of an individual, and if the same methods are employed in both, would not the diagnosis be justified that many systems of civilization——or epochs of it——possibly even the whole of humanity——have become neurotic under the pressure of the civilizing trends? To analytic dissection of these neuroses, therapeutic recommendations might follow which could claim a great practical interest. I would not say that such an attempt to apply psychoanalysis to civilized society would be fanciful or doomed to fruitlessness. But it behooves us to be very careful, not to forget that after all we are dealing only with analogies, and that it is dangerous, not only with men but also with concepts, to drag them out of the region where they originated and have matured. The diagnosis of collective neuroses, moreover, will be confronted by a special difficulty. In the neurosis of an individual we can use as a starting point the contrast presented to us between the patient and his environment which we assume to be normal. No such background as this would be available for any society similarly affected; it would have to be supplied in some other way. And with regard to any therapeutic application of our knowledge, what would be the use of the most acute analysis of social neuroses, since no one possesses power to compel the community to adopt the therapy?In spite of all these difficulties, we may expect that one day someone will venture upon this research into the pathology of civilized communities. [p. 39] ... Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of natureto such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate one another to the last man. They know this——hence arises a great part of their current unrest, their dejection, their mood of apprehension. [p. 40]
