97
A scorched earth policy is a military strategy that involves destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area. It is a military strategy where all of the assets that are used or can be used by the enemy are targeted, such as food sources, transportation, communications, industrial resources, and even the people in the area. The practice can be carried out by the military in enemy territory, or in its own home territory. It may overlap with, but is not the same as, punitive destruction of the enemy’s resources, which is done for purely strategic/political reasons rather than strategic/operational reasons.(Wikipedia)
there does seem to be some overlap, but yeah, i’ll concede, this is, as you say, mostly just punitive, vindictive, vengeful, and merciless…because they can.

Posted by: john | Oct 19 2015 17:33 utc | 104

@ 81, 91: Congratulations, you’ve all signed onto the USA’s phoney GWOT! That means the whole tamale of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, police militarization, North American military command, universal NSA spying, TSA airport shakedowns, global drone murder of innocents. And conversely, abandonment of opposition to this latest instruments of the USA’s oppression of “its own people”. But it all flows logically from support to rightist ‘secular’ autocrats like Putin and Assad.
That’s what comes of cheering on Putin and ‘secular’ Assad. Putin’s own spokespeople have made it clear that they stood by America when 9/11 hit, as the biggest, baddest, boldest Islamophobic Holy Warriors on the planet. You all stand by ‘that America’ as well. David Horowitz’s America, that is.
How building the institutions for tomorrow’s fascist America constitutes a “leftist politics” is beyond all rational comprehension.

Posted by: matt | Oct 19 2015 17:58 utc | 106

Demian@80
Ah, I’m sorry Demian! But you gave me a harder task – to rediscover Hegel! I think I’m going to throw up my hands on that one – wikipedia informs me that Bertrand Russell found him difficult, so I would find him impossible at this stage of my degeneration. I did though find this at wikipedia:
“Hegel was putting the finishing touches to this book, the Phenomenology of Spirit, as Napoleon engaged Prussian troops on October 14, 1806, in the Battle of Jena on a plateau outside the city. On the day before the battle, Napoleon entered the city of Jena. Hegel recounted his impressions in a letter to his friend Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer:
‘I saw the Emperor – this world-soul – riding out of the city on reconnaissance. It is indeed a wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single point, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it … this extraordinary man, whom it is impossible not to admire.'”
That brings me to the conclusion that indeed, Crime and Punishment is absolutely a dissertation on Hegel, or at least on some of the ideas he was expressing whilst engaged in his philosophical writings. Raskolnikov is obsessed by Napoleon, by the capacity of ‘great’ men to overcome the restraints imprisoning ordinary citizens. His resolve to become another such is the essence of the novel – one of which a Russian lady once remarked: ‘It is a crime to write such books, and a punishment to read them!’
But I mustn’t distract you from your worthy endeavor-onward, good soul!

Posted by: juliania | Oct 19 2015 18:49 utc | 108

@109
I don’t have a lot of patience for Dostoyevsky. My eyes just start to glaze over when I see him waxing poetic about aristocracy, being skeptical of constitutions and claiming the king is connected to the people through love. All I see is a monumentally naive and foolish writer.

Posted by: Plenue | Oct 19 2015 22:48 utc | 110

@84
Popular meme among who? I’ve never heard of it before. Though I well remember all the jokes about Bush being a puppet of Rumsfeld, being fed lines through an ear mic, etc.
I find nothing alien or unique about Obama. Quite the opposite; he’s a direct continuation of his predecessor, only because he has (D) in front of his name (not to mention being the ‘black liberal messiah’) he is able to get away with a lot more bullshit, at least as far as what passes for the left in the United States is concerned. If Obama has some better understanding of or sympathy for Islam he has a real funny way of showing it, considering he keeps murdering Muslims. He has done things like have his head of NASA makes statements about the agencies need to better reach out to Muslims, but that all just strikes me as pure PR garbage meant to try and make up for all the Muslim killing.

Posted by: Plenue | Oct 20 2015 0:30 utc | 112

@111 Kiwicris.. well b has answered part of your post with a thread on your comment on the power stations being blown up.. as for an uptick box feature – reminds me of the stupid ‘like’ feature on facebook – both of which i detest..

Posted by: james | Oct 20 2015 1:01 utc | 114

@Demian #76
Thanks for the reply. I can agree that the Orthodox faith never attained the hierarchical concentration of power or became a political player in the same manner that the Roman Catholic church did. It was definitely politicized between the time of Peter the Great and the Russian Revolution, as an instrument of czarist authority. Either way, the line between church and state gets blurry. But this is all beside the original point, that the emphasis on community with (at the local level) Roman Catholicism and Orthodox stands in contrast to the liberal individualism of Protestant Europe and the Anglosphere. Not having that baggage of liberal individualism could explain the readiness to accept post-liberal solutions in Latin America and the Russosphere. One could also argue that strong pre-liberal traditions have had the same effect in the Sinosphere, including Japan.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Oct 20 2015 1:49 utc | 116

Thirdeye @ 70, Your thesis that Bretton Woods “established ground rules for the existing oligarchs for replacement of world financial structures that had been disrupted by World War II.”
Before WWII all countries owned and controlled their own central banks, and printed their own currencies w/o recourse to IMF/Fed rules. After Bretton Woods they did not. My point is it wasn’t a replacement but the great change w/o which our present unjust world could not have emerged. I have several times commented here some of the exact ways in which countries are restricted & the effects upon their economies. If you are interested, we can chat about it in the next open thread. I’ll source it all if you like. I appreciate that you are quite certain that I am wrong and that you care about the truth. I’m going to quote a couple pages of Starikov below which partially addresses your points. PS I have no data, hence no opinion on Stalin.
http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf
p104 As a result of the conference, an agreement was signed,which is known in history as the Bretton Woods agreement. The officially proclaimed goal of this agreement was to create a global financial system which would make it possible to eliminate economic nationalism and egoism and would lead to the stable existence of mankind for the sake of everyone’s prosperity. The real goal was completely different.”
p105 “Great Britain and the USA were actively trying to organise events the way they needed. The New World could only be built on the ruins on the previous one. And this is what a world war was needed for. According to its results the dollar was to become the world reserve currency. This task was achieved by means of the Second World War and dozens of millions of lives. This was the only way to make Europeans give up on their sovereignty as a sovereign state inevitably issues its own currency. This was the only way to make European and other countries agree to establish a little clone of the Federal Reserve System of the USA in each of them — a central bank independent from the government.”
p107 from 3 to 22 July, 1944 — the Bretton Woods conference takes place. 44 states are represented. The USSR delegation takes part in drafting the resulting documents;
6 August, 1945 — the USA drops a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and on Nagasaki a few days later;
p108-109 Most likely, it was after the testing and use of the nuclear weapons in August 1945 that the Anglo-Saxons denied the USSR any equality and offered the position of a guided satellite. They even gave Stalin some time to mull it over. The ratification of the Bretton Woods agreements was planned for December 1945. And meanwhile, the Combined Intelligence Committee of the USA prepared protocol no. 329 (4 September, 1945): ‘To make a list of approximately 20 of the most significant targets suitable for strategic nuclear bombing within the USSR and its controlled territory’. The power of gold was on the bankers’ side, as well as the power of weapons: the USA had the nuclear bomb while the USSR did not have one until 1949. Who could resist such double supremacy? Who could withstand such dictatorship? Seemingly, no one. But the leader of the USSR managed to. Whereas the Anglo-Saxons were seriously planning a nuclear blow to Russia-USSR should Stalin refuse to ‘give up’ his financial independence.
What saved the USSR was the fact that the USA did not have enough missiles to guarantee complete elimination of the whole military potential of the country, taking into consideration the USSR’s antiballistic missile system. The number of plans and orders regarding a nuclear war against Russia was multiplying until the Soviet Union tested its own bomb on 29 August, 1949.
And then the arms race began, where the USSR was ALWAYS catching up. The confrontation began what is so well known as the Cold War. And it was the West that started it and not the Soviet Union. The confrontation began because Stalin refused to surrender Russia’s state sovereignty. It was later surrendered by Yeltsin and Gorbatchev together.1
In December 1945 Stalin was brave enough not to ratify the Bretton Woods agreement. Was that the right decision? Let us rephrase the question: would it have been the right decision of the head of the country that had lost 27 million lives as a sacrifice to its independence, to sign a paper which would have deprived the country of this very independence? And it would have happened very soon with the help of peaceful financial methods.
To answer this question we need to carefully examine the Bretton Woods agreements.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 20 2015 3:01 utc | 118

Hi, Hoarsewhisperer @ 55, I suspect you’re joking when you say you don’t believe the power plant bombings, but I decided to post 2 references to it anyway, in case anyone else seriously doubts it. Anyway, the Syria online link is useful.
http://www.syriaonline.sy/?f=Details&catid=12&pageid=18983
In blatant violation of international law, warplanes of the US-led alliance violated Syrian airspace and attacked a power plant that feeds Aleppo city, causing a blackout in the city.
A military source said that warplanes of the Washington alliance violated Syrian airspace and attacked civilian infrastructure in Mare’a, Tal Sha’er, and al-Bab in Aleppo countryside on Sunday.
The source added that the warplanes attacked the biggest electric power plant that feeds Aleppo city, which resulted in cutting off power from most neighborhoods in Aleppo city.
This transgression comes only 8 days after two F-16 warplanes belonging to the alliance targeted two power plants in al-Radwaniye area east of Aleppo city, cutting off power from the area.
—
http://thesaker.is/media-briefing-of-chief-of-the-main-operational-directorate-of-the-general-staff-of-the-russian-armed-forces-col-gen-andrei-%e2%80%8ekartapolov/
The first power plant incident is covered at about 15 on the video, which alternates to the English translator

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 20 2015 4:35 utc | 120

Claudio, I really find interesting this idea that something definitive happened towards the end of the 70s which, if we could understand it, would help in today’s struggle to reverse tyranny. A good source would be political books written at the time by older people especially, as they would be more alive to the change away from the status quo.
I suppose the oligarchs must have gotten certain laws passed which began to snowball political/economic events. I know that great attention was paid to foreign policy; I think there’s not been a single Sec’y State who wasn’t a CFR member. I suppose the more serious accumulation of wealth took awhile after the imposition of the Bretton Woods system..
I’ve always assumed that an actual weakening of morality in the citizenry at large was a necessary prerequisite for the overthrow of American civilization that we’ve seen– the tolerance of dishonesty, infidelity, the loss of idealism and of purpose. I guess it’s almost a loss of introspection, of the ability to examine one’s life. I really think there was a coordinated attack on morality through Kinsey, Hollywood, popular fiction and television. If you have read any of the better fiction from 100 years ago or longer, you see at once that it couldn’t have been written today.
Education in grade school and high school has been revamped several times, and each time it worsened. The first was when they combined history, civics and geography into “social studies” which was just about empty of content.
Explicily politico/economic events in the late 70s?? Was that when people began to work so many more hours and more women began to work outside the home? Ah, I can’t start another area of inquiry, but you’ve got me thinking.
Thanks for responding, Claudio.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 20 2015 6:20 utc | 122

Psychohistorian @ 119,
Regarding China & sdr:
http://journal-neo.org/2015/10/14/chinas-achilles-heel-is-her-golden-chance/
Wm Engdahl:
“As far as I am able to see, the error of Beijing monetary strategy at present is to put acceptance of the RMB within the IMF’s SDR basket of currencies as a strategic aim in order to make the RMB fully convertible and ultimately accepted as another prime reserve currency beside the Yen, dollar, Euro or Pound Sterling. That’s a fallacy of composition, much as a blind man grabbing the elephant’s tail believing it to be a snake.
“Each of the present four “elite” SDR currencies are there because of their geopolitical histories. Ultimately all are there because of their tie to the US dollar and the Dollar System behind it. That is the system that is disintegrating since the American financial crisis of 2007. To sacrifice her sovereignty, her monetary flexibillity to devalue or revalue the RMB, to open her financial markets completely to free foreign capital flows, is to expose China to dangers unimaginable.
“Associated with that danger is the painful fact that today the Peoples’ Bank of China has the world’s largest central bank holdings of US dollar assets, an estimated $2 trillion. Most of that is in US Government debt or semi-public agency debt. When China reaches the point that she provokes Washington’s warhawks sufficiently, as did Russia, then we can be sure that the US Treasury’s new Office of Financial Terrorism draws up devastating new financial sanctions, freezes those $2 trillion in US assets, decides, as it did several years ago with Iran, to pressure the SWIFT interbank payments system to exclude all Chinese banks from the international dollar clearing system.
“China’s leadership, under Deng Xiaoping, made a decision in 1978 to reform under what is known as “Reform & Opening Up” or “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.” The essence of Deng Xiaoping’s Theory as he described in his writings was integration of the basic theory of Marxism-Leninism with the practice of modern China and the characteristics of the present era. It was to adapt a centralized communist China economy to “new historical conditions,” that is to gradually open up special zones of the economy to western market models.”

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 20 2015 6:50 utc | 124

@122 Penelope
I don’t think you understand the power of TV/Hollywood when combined with the dumbing down of education and focused agnotology from the bought marketing types. In America the TV is where a very high percentage of folks go for news, weather, what to think, when to think, how to think, when not to think, etc. For those that also listen to radio, those sources are owned by the same conglomerates with the same message control (America is great, Manifest Destiny, Exporting Democracy, etc.) Since Vietnam there has been no media coverage of any of the ongoing wars of Empire because the PTB learned how to further control the message.
Your perspectives make me want to know how old you are and what sort of background/education you have…..it is good to see your energy…..keep learning and growing community.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 20 2015 7:11 utc | 126

@113
Far as I’m concerned organized religion seldom has anything to contribute in terms of morality. You claim seperation of church and state leads to atrocities under the guise of realpolitik. That’s quite a leap, since I can name plenty of atrocities done under the ‘moral’ auspices of an organized church. Liberalism doesn’t care about moral behavior on the part of the state? Seriously? Also the passing comment about France and Britain engineering two world wars, where do you get this stuff?
@122
Inquiries into human sexuality constitute an attack on morality?

Posted by: Plenue | Oct 20 2015 9:10 utc | 128

Penelope@124

When China reaches the point that she provokes Washington’s warhawks sufficiently, as did Russia, then we can be sure that the US Treasury’s new Office of Financial Terrorism draws up devastating new financial sanctions, freezes those $2 trillion in US assets, decides, as it did several years ago with Iran, to pressure the SWIFT interbank payments system to exclude all Chinese banks from the international dollar clearing system.

I’m not familiar w/Engdahl. Did quick Google, seems he has a lot of opinions that focus my skepticism: among other things, he’s a global warming denier.
In any event, hie statement from your link I quoted above… never going to happen for more determinative reasons then I can count. Just a couple:
1) Saying freezing $2T of Chinese held $$ “as it did several years ago with Iran”… that’s nonsense (politely stated). Iran had no direct interaction with US economy (some peripheral, but minimally consequential): there was no US “pain” financially from doing that. China is almost an umbilical cord to US economy, across the board:
a) We have become wholly dependent on their manufacturing for everyday goods: electronics, now building materials, even glass (China supplies hi-tech glass products for our large commercial buildings, the only supplier for some of this in the world). US simply does not have the capital & infrastructure to replace this. Freezing Chinese banks would bring multiple US major economic sectors to a standstill overnight.
b) China is doing huge business all over the world now, even in petroleum development and support services. There’s criticism of some of their financing agreements (somewhat predatory, high interest) in some circles a lot of people have interpreted as representative, but far more that has been executed exceptionally well with very high quality (engineering, dams, infrastructure projects, even high speed rail). In many nations (similar to what’s happening with world perception of US in this Syria thing), China is seen and accepted as a more reliable partner then US. China has replaced US corporations that have dominated much of this work worldwide for decades. Again freezing China’s bank transactions may punish them in short run, but it’s going to isolate US in the long run. These countries will bypass US banks entirely, because they *need* these projects NOW.
c) USD is, proportionally vastly dependent on our financial sector: last I checked, over 30% of US GDP. This is more then twice, by long held and well established economic standards, what any self sufficient modern economy can sustain. To put it another way, a huge % of US Financial sector “profits” are on paper only, dependent on investment in (to a very large extent) China. Wall Street lobby alone, would never go for this “freeze”.
d) Many of largest US corporation’s economic “drivers” are now reliant on the business they are doing in…. China. IBM, GM to name a couple. Both are making more money now (especially IBM) in China then US. Huge domestic U.S. stock holdings in both companies (and many others similarly *grounded* in China now). Any financial actions as Engdahl suggests… impossible. Our financial regulators (did you ever watch movie: Too Big To Fail) simply don’t have any ability now to intercede in this way: they take orders from our Big Business, period.
e) Lastly, freezing Chines banks would stop Chinese US investment immediately. We (US) has become so dependent on this, with short sighted economic/financial habits having grown so strong, everything from US government, finance sector… and worse, US workforce just entirely unprepared for this. US Universities have been in a slow slide (especially since ’07 financial crisis), the quality has dropped significantly. In many hi tech sectors, China (and many other nations) are delivering better education. Beyond that, since ’07, far greater % of US students going through higher education have chosen to study skills for which their is decent job in US economy only in narrow sectors: medical, and petroleum related disciplines, and… Business . ( I grin, because much of our MBA training is about “crunching numbers”, not producing excellence in actual execution. This is opposite of what’s being taught in successful “producing” economies: Germany (and nordic countries), Singapore, and to a lesser extent by more then here, China.)
So anyway, I agree with many (including some of your discussions here) US economy, finance and USD is headed for a day of reckoning, not too far away. And I think it very likely it will cause massive geo-political/financial/economic shifts leaving US in a very dependent situation. But, it’s just too complex with too many variables, with behavior of Asia/Russia/EU/So. America in response too un predictable. However, Engdahl’s suggestions is one outcome I’d bet the bank is not going to happen.

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 20 2015 13:10 utc | 130

@rufus magister #129:
the many social pathologies we see now result from the destruction of the middle class, and the foreclosing of social mobility for millions, by finance capital. No job, no future, no problem — opium is now the opiate of the masses.
Why would I want to disagree with any of that? I was trying to explain why the Russian state is more moral than anglophone states. This is a problem in urgent need of elucidation, and I provided a (non-mistifying) sociological explanation. The valid points you make about civil society (a concept introduced by Hegel, btw) have nothing to do with what I was talking about. Also, Hegel was well aware of the effects of unbridled capitalism on the vast majority of the population, which is why he is considered to be the prime philosopher of the welfare state.
The main thing that Marx added to Hegel was a pseudo-philosophical, ideological justification for totalitarianism.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 20 2015 14:06 utc | 132

@Demian #131:

it was an attainment of the Protestant Reformation for us to realize that sexual behavior has nothing to do with morality.

Given Dostoevsky’s type of the “fallen woman”, I think one can also say that according to Orthodoxy too (in my understanding of it anyway), sexual behavior has nothing to do with morality. Chastity is just a morally neutral code which is used to convey that one is trustworthy, and trustworthiness most certainly is a moral concept.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 20 2015 14:56 utc | 134

Plenue, see my comment about the journals as well as Demian’s. I am of the opinion that much of what is written there is to appease ‘the authorities’ in order to be able to continue novel writing. Early in his career Dostoievski got sent to Siberia for his free thinking ideas – in fact the Tsar had him and his friends lined up blindfolded for a fake execution beforehand.
One went mad because of that experience, and Dostoievski began to have epileptic seizures from then on. In Siberia, the wives and mothers of the Decembrists were an important influence. It wasn’t any picnic there. He must be read with all that in mind. He was an aristocrat, yes, but not a wealthy one, and he also developed a gambling weakness which didn’t help. But he had been thrust into the midst of the dregs of Russian society in Siberia, from whom he learned a lot.
Demian, I didn’t mean to disparage Hegel; from what I understand of him I rather like him. I just don’t understand his philosophy very well – it’s really complex. The synthesis, antithesis idea seems to be borne out, doesn’t it – Israel becoming nazi-like, the US turning into a colonial hegemony when its roots were the opposite. And in TBK, Alyosha is at first somewhat wimpy – has a hero complex too – he needs Ivan. They are brothers after all.
With Russia, perhaps we are seeing that synthesis/antithesis in a good way. I sure hope so.

Posted by: juliania | Oct 20 2015 17:43 utc | 136

@juliania #136:
I certainly didn’t get the impression that you were disparaging Hegel in any way. But the synthesis/antithesis thing is “vulgarized” Hegelianism: he never explicitly stated such a scheme.
A Hegelian concept is Aufhebung (sublation): moving on to the next or a higher level, while preserving what was true in what came before. That is what Russia is trying to do with its history, as argued by Nicolai Starikov:

The Russian empire – the USSR – the Russian Federation. This is what the continuity of our government and our country looks like. It is a single line. All the tragedies on this line, all of its twists and problems – the entirety of it – are our history.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 20 2015 18:35 utc | 138

@133
You mean the Lenin whose Revolution was completely betrayed by Stalin? Not that I have a high opinion of Lenin either. His Vanguardism was inherently oligarchical from the start. I imagine Marx would have been horrified of Lenin’s ideas and actions, and things only devolved from there. The entire Soviet experiment was one long disaster.

Posted by: Plenue | Oct 20 2015 22:01 utc | 140

Demian at 132 —
I still don’t see how Hegelian metaphysics comprehends reality in a superior manner than liberal pragmatism or historical materialism. What would be the content of “The Hegelian Manifesto”? Above my pay grade, but let suggest a chant for the demo:
“What do we want?”
“Synthesis!”
“When do we want it?”
“Now!”
I re-examined 113, and an observation occurred to me. States, as they actually exist, are not (and I think, should not be) moral institutions. I tend to follow the Sophists, and Aristotle. States and their laws are needed conventions for social life, and social life is an inherent feature of human life.
That was not my observation. What I noted is that you cannot seem to adduce any Hegelian states that are presently producing moral governemtn. It’s all quite abstract, and it acknowledges reality only long enough to deny it. We Marxists are stuck with our first drafts and mistakes, like bourgeois democracy was, and so it seems should Hegel.
You seem aware of the problem in saying “Assuming for the sake of the argument that the Prussian state did become in actuality the Hegelian state (it was a vestigial welfare state [the cameralist Prussian autocracy? paternalistic, maybe, not the same as the social safety net- rm] in which the monarch was subject to law, just like anyone else).” Juliania’s quotation at 108 leads me believe Popper might be onto something. Wikipedia on Hegel describes him as holding that “Hegel’s idea of the ultimate goal of history was to reach a state approximating that of 1830s Prussia.”
The monarch in Prussia, and later Imperial Germany, was not subject to the law, i.e. the parliament, in a key area — the military. See Craig, Politics of the Prussian Army.
Your history of German unification is not particularly good. It begins with defeat in the Napoleonic War sparking the earliest embers of pan-German nationalism. It erupts with the 1848 Revolution and the failed liberal Frankfurt Assembly. Frederick William IV declined the offer of the throne, famously saying he would not take “a crown from the gutter.”
As is well known, Bismarck used “Blood and Iron” to unite Germany. France was the enemy, as she held Alsace and had long been a strong cultural influence. The German Empire was formed in early 1871 at Versailles, at the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian War.
It was the subsequent economic and political competition that heightened tensions on both sides. Colonies were vital to economic well-being, or so the time thought. Growing German steel capacity could build merchantmen and escorts to service them. And so colonies and trading stations appeared in Africa and the Pacific.
It was at this time , ca. 1890, Britain began to see a threat in Germany and a friend in Russia. Bismarck’s favoring of the Austrians final broke up the “Holy Alliance” of Austria-Hungary, Prussia/Germany, and Austria. But it was Wilhelm II that really blew Bismarck’s work.
And I believe we’re all acquainted with the subsequent development of the late Hegel’s former ideal state.
Whatever pressures England and other states placed upon Germany, there were elements from within its culture and lived experience that produced a highly unpleasant form of fascism. Other states produced fascist movements, and/or have other tragic flaws within them, conducive of casual tragedy and suffering.

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 20 2015 23:17 utc | 142

@143
Pretty sure Machiavelli was writing satire, though a lot of people completely missed that. It generally hasn’t ended well for anyone who tried to rule in the style of The Prince.

Posted by: Plenue | Oct 21 2015 3:26 utc | 144

Claudio @ 139, My goodness, I wrote the comment below based on something you said above re “paradigms”. Now I see that my guess was correct, after reading your comment 139. People come to their conclusions from such enormously different perspectives; it never fails to surprise me.
—
Claudio,
I get the impression that you may think that the change to rhe dominance of economic neoliberalism was a product of society, of the zeitgeist. Don’t know if that is an element of your thinking. I see most change as managed & directed by the big foundations/ think tanks including the CFR. The extent of their activities in changing education and religion and even the messages in entertainment, and the media of course is truly paradigm-shattering.
Eg: When they wanted women to work (for various reasons including the concealment of the fall in living standards), the change was simply PRODUCED by immense propaganda from all sides. Most people thought it was just an idea whose time had come, but if you knew the means of social change that they employ it was easy to see that the change was directed. Or, another example– the breakup of the black family: They sent welfare workers everywhere to entice people that this aid was available, even into the rural South. Before the program was started, Blacks had a lower illegitimacy rate than whites, and families stayed together.
You see, when the graduated income tax was passed, Rockefeller put his funds into 4 great foundations, which have been used down through the generations largely in support of changing society towards the goal whose shape is now becoming obvious. The Rockefeller group now control other foundations as well, through interlocking directorates.
It’s funny, but though most people accept that a farmers group looks out for farmers’ interests, people find it unbelievable that the very rich and powerful do the same thing– and this has long since spilled over to incredible social engineering truly obsessed w power.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 21 2015 4:17 utc | 146

Demian at 143 —
“By their fruits ye shall know them.” I’m inclined to think Popper right. And so what becomes of Hegel’s ideal state is very germane. That his moral state could be frittered away by a hapless monarch suggests that it is not especially robust. Same for Plato’s failure to realize the program set out int The Republic; not a strong endorsement.
Moral degeneration is generally a failure of the powerful, not the weak.
The Prince is perfectly correct — private morality differs from public morality. Does one always tell the truth in diplomatic negotiations?
I would describe Aristotle as an improvement and systematization of Socrates. Socrates is basically the aristocratic reaction to the Sophists.
The state embodied abstract ideals that stood outside time and space. As such, state forms could not and should not be changed. And if that just incidentally would keep power and wealth in the hands of traditional aristocrats, well, you know, rule of the best….
Aristotle was much more subtle. He sets up a typology (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy which degenerate into tyranny, oligarchy, and anarchy) and says in effect — what conditions do you need to make this a suitable form? Where might it work? And it turns out aristocracies generally work best; democracies, very limited in application.
So I always appreciated the analytical tools in Aristotle, less so the aristocratic biases.
Russia was not convinced of the importance of strategic bombing, and targets in Germany would have I think been out of range. I don’t recall that the Germans did much on the Eastern Front, either. Russia understood the importance of armor (due to their aid to the Wehrmacht in evading the Versailles restrictions on German weapons development) and were prepared, where the US was not. The US was sold on the power of air power (e.g., development of carriers, and the B-17).
I don’t think that Orthodoxy has a monopoly on the notion that the state should be moral. The Catholic Church and Religious Right are as one on the point of abortion (e.g., the Hyde Amendment), other Protestant sects (e.g. Quakers, Unitarians) have other expectations. I don’t think we Americans are exceptionally good or bad.

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 21 2015 4:35 utc | 148

@Penelope #146:
“Nonexistent inflation”? At the time, macroeconomists were puzzling over what they called the problem of “stagflation” – stagnant growth combined with significant inflation, both of which should not have occurred together, according to the then prevailing Keynesian theory. Nixon tried to deal with that with price and wage controls: what can be greater government interference with the market than that? Volker solved the inflation problem by radically hiking interest rates, and we never saw growth rates as high as they were in the 1950s and 1960s again.
It’s hard to tell now whether economists really thought the neoliberal policies that followed (lowering taxes, deregulation) would restore growth or whether the plan was to kill of the middle class all along. It’s like Iraq: did they really think they could bring liberal democracy to it, or was the plan from the very start simply to destroy the country?

Posted by: Demian | Oct 21 2015 4:59 utc | 150

jdmckay @ 130,
Thanks for a thoughtful response. I suspect you are correct on a quick read, but I’d like to consider more thoroughly what both you & Engdahl have said. Will respond more thoroughly in a day or 2. I seem to be swamped. I have 4 books by Engdahl, but not his latest, which is “Target China”. He’s spent time in China.
I also doubt the man-made-climate-change story. If you are open to a nonconfrontational video in which the problems of policy-makers are dealt with along with doubts expressed by several skeptics you might watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMQk-q8SpBU Canadian Senate Hearings w 4 Climate Scientists speaking for 10 minutes each, followed by a collegial Q & A. Not in any sense a complete presentation of responsible skepticism, but covers points not often treated.
If you are still exploring positions contrary to your own, this link gives some fairly standard textbook data in graph form, followed by analysis w which you will probably disagree. http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
I am still looking at contrary views. If you have 1 or 2 links that you consider especially good, please post them here for me.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 21 2015 5:10 utc | 152

D at 151 —
I didn’t say his Open Mind & Its Enemies was right. I deferred to his expertise in the area of Hegel.
I’ve said before metaphysics is above my pay grade. I consider myself a Sartrean existentialist philosophically, though I could only make it through Search for a Method (i.e., that of historical materialism). After Marx, my second favorite German thinker is Nietzsche.
And to the chagrin of former comrades, I cut that with a good bit of pragmatism — let’s strip away the terminology, the syllogisms, the assumptions about reality. What is the “cash value” of the concept (I believe that’s how James styled it)? That is, how did it work.
So it seems you’re inclined to give Hegel a “pass” on reality and keep it abstract. To each their own.

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 21 2015 12:34 utc | 154

Penelope@152
Ok, you’ve opened up a Pandora’s Box. 🙂
I’ll take a look inside (and outside), meet you 1/2 way… and take your invitation seriously.

I seem to be swamped. I have 4 books by Engdahl, but not his latest, which is “Target China”. He’s spent time in China.

I have… too. I’ll say this: western economists, especially “experts” on China, have issued prognostications of China’s imminent economic collapse going back (since I’ve paid attention) to at least 2001. Many reasons given. I can cite several if you are interested. They have all been incorrect: none of that has happened. From over building (both commercial & residential), to “under valuing” their currency, to state subsidizing of particular industries (solar panels for ex.)… doctorates in economics who were supposed to “know”, told us why this was fatal.
At least in U.S., I see little evidence of a national “will” to understand modern China. They’ve made strides raising standard of living across the country, in very short time… no other similar “real life” example in modern times comparable to their progress. I’d also point out: China (in practical terms) is challenged to feed, educate, house and “pro-gress” for a nation approx. same area as the U.S., but with almost 5 X more people. And this, when I first went there (’91) for a nation whose avg. “blue collar” wage was under $.25 per hour. In ’99 (from memory), about $.60 per hour. Many of their biggest cities now, especially in the south with populations over 1m, have a standard of living enviable by much of the developed world.
Guangzhou’s (for example, 2nd largest GDP in China I believe) average income 2015 around 57jk yuan (about $9k USD), up more then 10 fold since year 2k. Similar curves amongst their cities w/over 1m people within 5-800 miles of South China sea. A general “curve” for the country can be seen here. I’ll also note, of those I’ve been to (over 10)…. they are beautiful cities, world class modern in most every way, and most of the people are pleased and satisfied with their lives and view of the future. Clearly evident from spending time with them.
So anyway, yes… they’ve got problems and challenges. And, grading on the curve over last 15-20 years especially, they’ve met and exceeded improvements in most every aspect of living quality consistently. US has not come close, we’re going backwards.
AFAIC, I see little US “mind set” to really understand China. Rather our leaders and “experts” seem predisposed to superiority, and view China always through this “lense”. We are missing an awful lot in doing so. I would say the “problem” is very similar to US seeing/judging Putin through historical “prejudices”, unable to see the forest for the trees and grasp reality now.
There’s a lot we could learn from China in hugely meaningful ways, but we’re back to more or less “accessing” them as a threat… again. Back to the Future AFAIC.

Canadian Senate Hearings w 4 Climate Scientists

Ok, I watched that. Quickly, Ross Mckitrick (prof. economics, specializing in “environmental economics). Among other things, he says… “there’s reason to believe the problem (climate change/GW) has been exaggerated” but does not give details (a common problem with government hearings everywhere, allowing just a few minutes to explain what can’t be thoroughly covered if they locked these lawmakers in a room for a week). I acknowledge he has “credentials”.
His entire talk is contextualized within the (his words) “the economics of climate change do not favor Kyoto type commitments”.
1) Kyoto now (agreement in ’97) almost 20 yrs old. It’s framework has not been implemented (for the most part) by largest polluting countries. That’s 18 lost years for progress.
2) Arguments against it are the same: the “economics” don’t work… so let’s just not do nothing until… something happens?. AFAIC, this is a mindset guaranteeing inaction: we “can’t respond”, because of money.
3) Justification for inaction on this basis, is an implicit acknowledgement that reliance on “money” (income), and keeping those $$ flowing while disregarding the activities generating that income (fossil fuel reliance in all it’s manifestations) is incongruent with coming to grips with the reality of GW. I’ll put it another way: if the “process” of doing something begins with, looking at “available funds” and all the mental considerations in doing so attached to “financial security”, few people will get beyond… that. It’s the same with ’07 financial “crisis” (we gave architects of that fraud MORE MONEY ), same with undoing our reliance on weapons industry (endemic in my community in NM), and same Pavlovic reconstruction of US’s currently maturing housing bubble (again).
4) Climate… the intricate processes of so many inter-related NATURAL systems, simply does not care about money: it operates on it’s own rules (call it physics, and all that entails). So… after all these years “debating” Kyoto (this hearing you linked no different then many in US congress) with little progress, most relevant governments still “on the fence”, that’s a hell of a long time for (we’d like to think) “intelligent” beings to come to grips with a fundamental reality. This reality simply is not amenable to useful (accurate, reliable) understanding by considering addressing it with a premise of “economic feasibility”. So with all due respect, having seen variations of this gentleman’s arguments many times, I no longer put any of my own effort into “thinking” in these terms. I think it’s little more then a guaranteed way to do nothing.
McKitrick’s claim of recently released (2009) documentation of ICC emails (Climatgate) “confirmed” bias and cronyism… well, sorry: that’s more of what I describe above as far as I see it. It’s those kinds of generalized statements… repeated and repeated, that persuade those listening to “turn off” and ignore the issue at hand, believing it is corrupt. These descriptions of “Climategate” didn’t stand up to scrutiny BTW. I can give you links if you’re interested, but going down that road is just another way to get stuck in the “rabbit hole” AFAIC: it’s a digression from the real issue: is GW occurring, or not. (And my answer to you is already getting toooooo long).
I was not familiar with McKitrick before watching this video. So I looked a bit, came up with (honestly, what I expected as it’s common to most well credentialed deniers) some info which, in my view now… is grounds for pushing “experts” on GW to the periphery of influencing me. Good discussion (thorough) of McKitrick and his views/statements/associations here. A snippet:

Even worse, the writers appear to have relied on McIntyre himself to supply the context of his improbable rise (always a dodgy proposition where McIntyre is concerned). But McIntyre’s thin publication record suggests that his prominence has less to do with any compelling scientific analysis, and much more to do with astute promotion. And, indeed, the McIntyre-McKitrick saga turns out to have the usual supporting cast of anti-science propaganda: two notorious right-wing think tanks (the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the George Marshall Institute) and a deft fossil-fuel company funded PR veteran operating behind the scenes (none other than Tom Harris of APCO Worldwide).

One other McKitrick observation: he made a name for himself with his critique of the “Hockey Stick” theory, a very common… oft repeated ad nauseum “talking point” of deniers. WIthout going into lengthy discussion, you can evaluate yourself a pretty thorough, detailed with citations, look at McKitrick’s “hockey stick” writings and what a broad consensus of climate scientists have shown to validate “hockey stick” since. McKitrick’s well (right wing/neocon think tank disseminated) paper is here.
If you’re interested in “reading up” on how well “Hockey Stick” theory has been validated, I’d suggest reading some of the papers/discussions on RealClimate that address this very thoroughly. Their “index” section lists most of their papers and discussions going back to at least ’04. Search their for “hockey stick”, and there are 9 postings/discussions on this subject. Non-trivial reading, however.
In answer to your request for reading on this, no better place to start then this website. All writers, and many participants (commenters) have been on fore front of well credentialed science on this issue, many for entire careers. Many have been participants in ICC processes (as McKitrick) for a long time. They keep publications pretty “clean” (free from political influence), which is where this subject belongs AFAIC.
Watching your youtube links (you live in Canada?), I couldn’t help having my thoughts review process leading to Canadian Tar Sands development. I’d guess (haven’t checked lately) huge drop in oil processes has slowed things down (is this true?). What cannot be disputed:
1) this is very expensive “oil” to turn into fuel.
2) “development” has been massive there, on an industrial scale.
3) Environmental destruction in these areas up there… almost hard to believe. From water table pollution (very toxic), to rising cancer rates in industrialized areas there:

In a 2009 study commissioned by the governments of Alberta and Canada, scientists studied the incidences of cancer found in the tiny community of Fort Chipewyan. Fort Chip, as it is commonly known, has 1,100 residents and is located where the Athabasca River empties into Lake Athabasca, 124 miles north (downstream) of the major tar sands developments in Fort McMurray. In the report, scientists noted a diagnosed cancer rate from 1995 to 2006 that was 30 percent higher than what would typically be expected for that period of time. Further, certain types of cancers — biliary tract cancers, blood and lymphatic cancers, lung cancers in women, and soft tissue cancers — all occurred at rates higher than expected, the government study showed. Scientific studies have linked elevated levels of these specific cancers to exposure to certain constituents in petroleum products and the chemicals produced in petroleum manufacturing. Fort Chip has also gained the attention of the media due in part to concerns raised by an Alberta physician, Dr. John O’Connor, who has called for further investigation of cancer incidences after noting the presence of at least three cases of cholangiocarcinoma in this small town within the past decade. Cholangiocarcinoma is a cancer that typically strikes only 1 in every 100,000 to 200,000 individuals.

… what a mess.
Question: given this is within his discipline, I wonder what McKitrick has to say about the “economic feasibility” of this? And, looking at it another way, where would we (or here, Canada) be now, if the money that went into Tar Sands industrialization instead went into Green Energy development since McKitrick (and similar deniers on economic reasons) put their “muscle” into stopping it? One of the biggest (tragic?) aspects of these guys influence (denying GW action on economic grounds): they NEVER include in their public stances, or even attempt to… the massive costs handed to the “future” for health consequences of continued fossil fuel “new technologies” (same thing has happened with Fracking), nor the cost for loss of potable water below ground.
I find this stuff as hard to stomach as US actions in Syria and Iraq.
My last comment on this: one doesn’t have to be versed in the science to notice common behaviors across the globe in local communities, states and nations. That is, “local” economic interests have their own seemingly inalterable momentum, and “trump” (no pun intended) a global “reckoning” wrt GW & climate change. Whether Tar Sands, massively destructive Fracking in US (it’s expanded massively in US just in last 5 years) , to ME wars over oil control AND favored pipeline delivery routes (Turkey, arguably part of Ukrainian disaster, and even below the radar motivation for GWB’s Afghanistan motivations pre-911), exploitive Bolivian oil/NG development (with unique outcomes) resulting in Morales’ populist election, and now many regions in Africa similarly experiencing financially “poor” countries with weak governments giving away oil/NG development to bribing multi-nationals…
It all looks the same to me: what’s the truth about GW again? Too busy with all this stuff, to acknowledge or pause… to get this right? Plenty of money for next generation bombers, bunker busting nukes for this threat or that one, bailouts for Wall street, and “feasibility studies” to “help” people suffering from consequences of all this nonsense for so long, but… understanding and dealing with Climate change is not “economically feasible”?
Reality (the world.. Earth) is shouting at humanity, but too few are listening. Anyone “believing” GW (and really, industrial pollution and it’s consequences largely from burning fossil fuels) is “hysteria”, may be given pause for reconsidering by reading very scholarly and scientific investigation: Dying of The Trees (1997). It details multiple leaf, trunk and root studies from forest around US over time, convincingly demonstrating our forests are (literally) dying from effects of both climate change, drought, and atmospheric migration of various fossil fuel burning by-products from “fuel burning” localities to forests far away.
What happens locally, has consequences elsewhere. Local “economic feasibility” studies are incapable of acknowledging this. Humanity NEEDS TREES! 🙂 They are largely responsible for the oxygen we breathe. Our killing them by “slow death” is a decades long process just like man made GW, and as your expert (McKitrick and many like him) confidently assure us all is well, they are missing just about everything that matters.
Trees (in this context) are part of the “feed back loop”, and they are telling us something. That message does not need philosophy, feasibility studies or government approval to validate: it requires only observation, and a “will” to put together the other pieces of this systematic “loop” into understanding. Very simply, this is just… happening.
There’s a good (but not comprehensive) article touching on essence of “Dying of The Trees” here. This article touches on another aspect of this “feed back” loop, rarely discussed but just as real:

Ahead of us we have the possible destruction of forests, vital in maintaining oxygen levels necessary for life, in the control of carbon dioxide, and in water cycle balances. Notably, the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere has dropped from 35 to 21 percent from prehistoric times to now, and the carbon dioxide has increased in part by the human growth pollution in cities with high oxygen levels, which often comprises only 15 percent of total air. So at this rate it is obvious that in these cities we will render the “air” unbreathable. Diana Beresford-Kroeger, a botanist, says, “the abuse of forests and pollution of the oceans has caused them to produce only half the oxygen (they produced) 10,000 years ago.”** We must also consider that in the last 30 years this process has accelerated the deterioration or the collapse of almost all living systems.
(…)
We are losing three oxygen molecules in our atmosphere for each carbon dioxide molecule that is produced when we burn fossil fuels. Studies of ice cores and recent data from direct atmospheric sampling have shown that there has been a 30% increase in carbon dioxide since the beginning of the industrial age. Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises.

Scripps has done exhaustive studies on this going back (that I’m aware) at least to ’91. Their conclusions have been: on our current path systemically, lack of sufficient oxygen to sustain life is an inevitability. (I can provide citations if you like).
Why is so much of humanity, always “late”?
Merkel (and several other EU leaders) posthumously making noise about solution in Syria, only after huge backlog (sorry for insensitive word) of refugees overwhelming resources to receive them? Same thing with massive exodus after we liberated Iraq. Always… late.
I’m convinced same thing with GW: we are very late. There are solutions, but they are not obvious. It’s not yet “too late”, but an effective response is going to require a much more determined, global and very concerted effort (paradigm shift) then anything I (or most of us) have seen in our lifetime.
I’m back here at MOA because of seriousness of (IMO) Syria situation: with Putin’s actions and Western immature reactions… aside from suffering in Syria, larger Western response creating very destructive war (nuclear?) not inconceivable. MOA is best resource I know to get the “lowdown” on factual realities there. Stupid, knee jerk actions could ruin (literally) the future for much of the world.
But… not too hard to see current Syria is another “local fire”, not unlike string of them we’ve seen across the region. And the seriousness of it obscures these larger issues (Climate), and what’s needed to “fix” it. How many more times can the world afford to be late?
Food for thought: the sun delivers more btu’s in 24 hours, then the entire planet generates by manmade energy production in 1 year. Solar “capture” (silicon based) already capable of alleviating much of our collective energy “needs”, but even that is… by today’s (modern) knowledge base, very remedial technology. Where is there any effort of finance/research, devoted in a “we cannot fail” kind of way, taking collective knowledge by those trained (physical sciences) to use it, towards answering the question: how can we capture and generate this energy (solar)… virtually limitless for all practical purposes, into usable form?
How many of these local wars could be eliminated, if this kind of “Green Energy” was a reality? Almost all of them I think, unless the skeptical view of human greed prevailing, obscures even giving thought to it. Little question AFAIC, preponderance of wars (especially in ME) in my lifetime, incubated and fought over combinations of LOCAL availability of petroleum OR “rights” to it, and no agreement for control and distribution. And I am not aware of any “economic model” ever discussed, which provides a solution either. Whether it happens or not I don’t know, but seems clear we need some very new thinking about this and an open mindedness to it not currently in evidence.
Are we waiting for an IPO? 🙂 (our current “finance” method). Would we even want such a thing, to be “owned” by some multi-national… determined to “recoup” it’s costs and have everyone pay them back “forever”, as Exxon/BP (etc.) do? What’s wrong with a “global” ownership of such an endeavor? Nobody thought we could split the atom until we gave those guys in Los Alamos (Manhattan project) EVERYTHING THEY NEEDED WITHOUT POLITICAL INTERFERENCE to… do it.
Did they do “economic feasibility” studies then?
All the people coming out of the woodwork to call Hillary a lesbian just on this one little discussion, wonder what similar “we can’t do it” voices drown out such thoughts as I suggest? But… why not? What’s our future look like otherwise? More of the same? How many of us will be back here in 1/3/5 years discussing and concerned about the (unknown now) similar local crisis then?
Seems very clear to me, climate/GW and Future Energy generation are inextricably linked and interactive as determining “factors” for how some semblance of world peace and productivity unfolds… whether we (or enough people to make it happen) choose to acknowledge it or not.

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 21 2015 17:00 utc | 156

@juliania #153:
[Ivan] was educated in Europe
Yes, Dostoevsky thought that Russians get screwed up if they spend too much time in the West. I guess that’s where I get my suspicion of (Russian) Russian Orthodox clergy who are not in Russia. But I am an example of this phenomenon myself. 😉
So, “Ivan posits that the Church will gradually replace the State”? Yes, that could be a reference to Hegel, I suppose. The idea of “the regeneration of man anew, of his restoration and salvation” is definitely not Hegelian; that’s probably a reference to Utopian socialists, which you had a lot of at the time in Russia. (rufus magister will know more about that than I.)
“in reality it is so even now” could be a reference to the Right Hegelian position. The preface to The Philosophy of Right has this famous sentence:

What is actual (real) is rational;
what is rational is real.

(I could be getting the order of the clauses wrong.) The second clause suggests that if something isn’t rational, it’s not really “real”, so that it is imperfect and needs fixing. This is the Left Hegelian view. (Marx was a failed Left Hegelian.) This is the side Ivan was taking. The first clause basically says that if something already exists, it must be rational. (Thus, the point of Hegel’s political philosophy was not to serve as a blueprint for society, but to explain how the already existing society works.) That is apparently the rejoinder that Zosima gives to Ivan.
So from what you wrote, that whole encounter could have been a reference to the debate that occurred in Germany after Hegel’s death, about what the implications of his system were. But I’d be surprised if that is actually the case, because why would Dostoevsky have a Russian holy man be the spokesman for one of the positions?
Anyway, you have just convinced me further that I must reread Dostoevsky.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 22 2015 0:08 utc | 158

test.. not a long post.. don’t want to do that again..

Posted by: james | Oct 22 2015 2:45 utc | 160

lost one again.. oh well, guess it doesn’t like what i am doing!

Posted by: james | Oct 22 2015 2:50 utc | 162

D at 157 —
Well, whatever his failings, Open Society was quite influential and his expertise on Hegel greater.
And as a Marxist, why I am critical of Hegel should be clear. That whole, you know, materialism vs. idealism thing.
I find it interesting that you would prefer to slag off Popper and my character rather than deal with the unpleasant fact — there is a great paucity of results for attempts at creating the Hegelian “moral state.” If this superior approach comprehends better reality, shouldn’t we expect superior results and more frequent attempts?
Leaving aside Popper’s view, the glowing quote about the King of Prussia that Juliania notes above makes his idealization of the Prussian state clear. If not Prussia, where? What is the nature of this “attainment” (I believe the word was) that they could not keep after the death of its sage? Confucians didn’t have that problem.

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 22 2015 4:59 utc | 164

jdmckay @ 156,
I’ve gotten to this really late today; it’s already 1:30 AM, so I’m just going to pick up some easy bits here & there tonight & return to it tmorrow.
–Re: oil/gas connex to war: I think it’d be happening anyway cuz the true cause isn’t really greed. The amount of money made by the oil billionaires can be spent on only one commodity– power. If there were no such thing as oil they’d produce a war just for the catastrophic chaos– all in the service of creating their global oligarchy, or NWO or neoliberal economic tyranny or whatever you want to call it.
–Anyway if catastrophic GW is really occurring it’s important enough in its own right not to have to link it as a cause of war. If it’s not true and a hoax as is my present judgement (not terribly informed) then it’s distracting attention from Fukushima, where I can scarcely believe that it’s merely being ignored. Also DU weapons, Amazon pollution, the insanity of fracking and tar sands (tremendous waste of water in extraction plus the ground water pollution). And fish from the Gulf of Mexico are still hazardous to eat after the BP accident.
–Regarding being late on the immigration crisis being presented as “Syrian”, Starikov on youtube presents a pretty good argument that the whole thing was an op created by the US. That is, the refugees from various places were being warehoused in Turkey– don’t know why I’m telling you this (sleepy). Here’s the link. Who KNOWS all the reasons for their manipulating us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTJc9pN29A4
–Why are we always late meeting these crises? Well, for one thing the media’s controlled. Also there’s such a constant level of crisis about so many things & we’re having a really tough time getting organized against the banker/mega transnationals. Most of the crises are of their making.
–By the way there may be new technology to supplement solar. Over the years I’ve heard of so my new engine types, but they get bought up by the oligarchs & deep-sixed. There’s an engine that runs on water & I think the army is starting to test that. Last I heard they didn’t have any exclusive rights to it.
–Yes I’m concerned about the possibility of a really catastrophic event arising from Syria, too. I’m not usually cuz why wd the bad guys in charge now risk their control w such an event. But lately they seem so set on getting rid of Russia and China as rivals that I’m feeling less certain even of their exercising nuclear restraint.
–Which is one reason why they could consider freezing China’s treasuries /dollars in spite of its effects on the global economy. I mean if you are comparing it to nuclear war it doesn’t sound so bad.
–Engdahl’s Target China refers to the US targeting of China. He’s extremely admiring of China & is not among those predicting China’s collapse. It’s just that she’s recently taken steps to become more economically integrated w the West: Privatizing state-owned industries, other things I’m too sleepy to enumerate.
–The economic school that wants to put aside the IMF/Fed system (Michael Hudson, U of MO, Ellen Brown, Randolph Wray, etc.) wants to restore national control of centra banks and of money-creation. I am not here referring to their brutal services as a collection agency for the banks, but to other vast restrictions due to membership in the IMF. it’s called Modern Monetary Theory.
–China has nearly always issued her own money– even after becoming an IMF member & people in the MMT movement usually cite this as a major component in her economic success. Lately she’s begun borrowing from the West instead.
–There are some technical aspects as to whether freezing Chinese Central Bank assets would have the very great effects you mention. Has to do w whether those assets are held in the same manner as Russian Central Bank assets or whether due to China’s hybrid status, they are more accessible to the govt. Suspect you’re right & they wd NOT do it, unless they are contrasting it w nuclear warfare.
–I’ll take a look at hockey stick, etc tomorrow. Appreciate your patience in supplying the info. Most people who feel GW is an urgent matter become too abusive to permit a dialogue.
Sorry, didn’t re-read this; hope its comprehensible. Hasta manana.
When were you last in China? Sounds great.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 22 2015 9:50 utc | 166

jdmckay, Hi again.
“they’ve met and exceeded improvements in most every aspect of living quality consistently. US has not come close, we’re going backwards.” Agreed. I think US is being taken down on purpose. The powers that be think they can more easily mush countries together into their global corporatocracy if we’re closer to the same living standards. They don’t want a middle class; they want worker bees.
“we’re back to more or less “accessing” them as a threat” Well, since the oligarchs have set their sights on supremacy they ARE a threat ala the Wolfowitz doctrine or Full Spectrum Dominance. If they weren’t power-obsessed they’d feel differently about China, but then we’d be in a different world.
Hockey stick: I took a look at the Real life index link. I think to be truly informed about it wd require more time than I want to give to it. And of course having found the graph either correct or incorrect wouldn’t prove or disprove the GW hypothesis– although if correct it wd indicate that the question merits further study. So to study this graph just one step further I ‘m looking to see how much further back you have to go to find a comparable uptick. I’m quitting for the night but it looks like you get another larger one at 1200-1300 years back instead of stopping at 1000. I’m looking for the perfect graph where I can be sure of what I see.
Mckittridge: Did he really address tar sands w/o pointing out all the terrible things! I’ll have to be sure to rely only on his arguments based on logic rather than expertise/reliable reporting. I’ll take a look at the video again. Btw, I’m less concerned about just having a grant from a neoconservative foundation because all science seems to be funded by foundation grants or schools and it begins to seem that all are ultimately funded by the Rockefeller group or similar. For that matter GW is mentioned a lot in the corporate media and they’re controlled by the same people that own everything else. I’m sure they’re funding both sides, so I consider it safest to focus on the arguments. But tar sands– ugh, that’s really outside of enough.
I’m in central coast California btw. I’m going to continue another step w hockey stick though I don’t think it’s really central. Do you have another area that you think is especially persuasive?
I like the other link that I gave you http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783. I think everyone agrees that we will, longterm, continue to slowly climb out of the little ice age. So when the title speaks of cooling, it’s just a perturbation w/in the larger trend.
If you have time, just tell me if you see a large flaw in it. I know there’s controversy about whether there is or isn’t a pause; I don’t think we can resolve that simply because the experts don’t seem to agree.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 23 2015 7:44 utc | 168

Penelope@168/9:
I rearrange order of some of what you said, makes it easier to respond.

Mckittridge: Did he really address tar sands w/o pointing out all the terrible things!

Yes. It’s mentioned only in his Toronto Sun OpEd. No mention of viability, lost investment $$, environmental consequences or anything else for Tar Sands project: only condemnation of proposed Carbon tax on it’s operation. Same argument he’s famous for in GW “debate”.
He credentials himself as a “scientist”: but his “positions” are consistently political.
The Alberta Health Board fired the physician who put his butt on the line bringing attention to high rise in rare cancers in the tarsands region. “Auhtorities” just don’t or won’t put all this together… both the Health risks and ensuing costs in lives & medical care as a consequence of this thing. This is precisely my experience in our work here, and same thing observed all around the US (and much of the world).
So AFAIC, McKitrick fails my test for reliable “economist” and scientist.

I’ll have to be sure to rely only on his arguments based on logic rather than expertise/reliable reporting. I’ll take a look at the video again.

He doesn’t mention Tar Sands in the video, only OpEd. Logic is useless unless beginning data/premise is accurate. This discussion was about “truth or fiction” wrt to man made GW. One of devilish (evil?) effectiveness of intelligent deniers: as far as their explanations/arguments go, there is believable logic. It is appealing to consider Earth’s warming and cooling (available) history to consider if IPC models showing far more rapid warming then and Paleontology data suggests, as a means to decide if GW is “possible”. Similarly suggesting (as these guys did) CO2 at only 3% of “Green house” gasses cannot be a “force”: that is “believable” (logical). It’s also untrue, and even the “notion” that a minority “element” in a natural system can alter it in significant ways.
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) in just 5 parts per TRILLION in water, will cause cancer. Many such examples available, to make this point. Logic is great when one has a “true” starting/data point(s). It becomes only an “exercise” otherwise in inapplicable “abstraction”.

Btw, I’m less concerned about just having a grant from a neoconservative foundation because all science seems to be funded by foundation grants or schools and it begins to seem that all are ultimately funded by the Rockefeller group or similar.

The groups I mentioned are well connected to advocacy protecting Tobacco companies when Wigand “busted them” for being fully aware of tobacco’s health risks and denying it. They even spiked the nicotine to enhance addictive qualities. Heartland especially, has done this (advocacy) for much destructive “Big business” propaganda.

Hockey stick: I took a look at the Real life index link. I think to be truly informed about it wd require more time than I want to give to it.
(…)
So to study this graph just one step further I ‘m looking to see how much further back you have to go to find a comparable uptick.
(…)
Great. That “water vapor feedback or forcing” link was just what I wanted. I remember that argument, where he said it hadn’t been established experimentally.

Truth of “water vapor feedback or forcing”… is it happening or not, at the core of correctly understanding if GW is man made or not, and whether IPC models predictions (2-3.6 degree increase in surface temps by 2100) are accurate.
I suggest to you, your answering this question for yourself, will not be done with satisfaction by looking for historical “upticks” in data from the “hockey stick” debate.
I also suggest that “deniers” wanting to (or working for interests, eg. oil companies “invested” in) NO major global shift to clean energy, continuously choose 1 questionable or unsettled item (fact, data point, or along the way insufficient data) to invalidate GW completely. They’ve done this in force with the “hockey stick” thingie.
The biggest reason the historical records for planet warming don’t fit, now: never in Earth’s history has human activities, on the scale currently, introduced anything close to the volumes of CO2 we are now worldwide. Massive increase just in last 15 years, and both the models and data shows increased rates of warming in this (historically, very short) time. So human activity has created a huge systemic (in climate patterns and mechanics) variable, FAST, with no historical equivalent.
The “deniers” have been attacking both GW validity and “hockey stick” theory with exact same arguments, for over 15 years now. When they began, data was insufficient to “prove” it: I say deniers motive was not to “find out”, but invalidated for desired outcomes.
If you carefully review timeline over this time of IPC work, across the board, you’ll find they’ve improved data, modelling, systemic climate functioning and details they didn’t understand then, all cumulatively adding much higher certainty to the “notion”. To put it mildly, this (denier “hockey stick” invalidation) is “disingenuous”. I think it is fundamentally and morally dishonest.
My suggestion if you want to answer this for yourself:
1) read and understand CO2’s role/functioning as (in climate terminology) a “force”. One doesn’t have to have a PHD in chemistry to “see” this.
2) go through Real Climate’s “beginner’s guide“.
3) Understand some basic “truths” about systems: they exist both in man made designs, and “creation’s” designs. Bucky Fuller nailed this:

Synergy is the only word in our language that means behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the separately observed behaviors of any of the system’s separate parts or any subassembly of the system’s parts. There is nothing in the chemistry of a toenail that predicts the existence of a human being.

I’m a Mech. Engineer. Thoroughly understanding this has been of more use in creating successful work products and just good “thinking”, then all my technical schooling. It hold’s true in reality, as steadfastly as E=MC 2. My big point on this: beware of anyone (deniers especially) who confidently decry man-made-global-warming as (to use Clark’s exact word) “preposterous”, based on one emphatic statement, not taking into account a systemic functioning of climate. Intentionally or not, they will mislead *every single time*.
One can put this definition to the test pretty easily, understand it’s universal applicability.

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 23 2015 14:47 utc | 170

The constant use of the word ‘deniers’ tells it all.

Posted by: From The Hague | Oct 23 2015 20:03 utc | 172

Hi, jd!
Plunging right in—
“Similarly suggesting (as these guys did) CO2 at only 3% of “Green house” gasses cannot be a “force”: that is “believable” (logical). It’s also untrue, and even the “notion” that a minority “element” in a natural system can alter it in significant ways”
Of course. One imm’y thinks of all sorts of examples. I STILL haven’t reviewed the tape; I want to know exactly what the reservation was about the lack of demonstration of an experiment that proves CO2 & water vapor interact as is presented by GW hypothesis. My memory’s that they used the small percentage of CO2 only to indicate that one would have to show how it nevertheless produces large effects. (and that whoever the speaker was felt that this hadn’t been done). I don’t think anyone actually used the small percent as a PROOF of anything. That’s too dumb & annoying.
“I suggest to you, your answering this question for yourself, will not be done with satisfaction by looking for historical “upticks” in data from the “hockey stick” debate.”
Agreed. I can only study the water vapor/CO2 connex by studying that specifically. It is simply a technique of mine in many situations to refuse to judge a narrow argument or graph all by itself. I find I want to put the argument into a broader context before evaluating it. And with graphs I always want to know what a wider frame would disclose: If somebody gives me a graph that goes from 2-5 I’ll want to see 0-7. I’ve found it helpful in a great many instances. It’s one of the things I really like about the globalresearch link– He sets the info in a really broad context before going on to present his own graphs and discussion.
In the case of hockey stick it was about the only thing I COULD do given that I didn’t want to get into what appeared to be an extremely detailed argument and counter-argument as to whether the graph was a correct representation or not. How many data points do you need in order to use them as a referrent in constructing the graph, etc., etc. It didn’t seem central, since even if it’s incorrect it doesn’t prove anything.
I liked Buckmister Fuller, too. He was so creative, but somehow they didn’t really let him use it enough. I’ve a considerable background in medicine, so the knowledge that tiny quantities can be powerful comes naturally– as well as an appreciation for the systemic. I’ve also worked as a legal assistant and in legal research so I know how terribly persuasive an argument can sound– until you’ve read the opposing one. That’s why I was able to say that I think one thing now but am actively looking for arguments on the other side. I find that with difficult questions you simply have to strive to find the strongest arguments on BOTH sides. And sometimes even after that you just have to be an adult and endure uncertainty.
Thanks for the advice. I agree with it all.
You know, people who are skeptical of the GW hypothesis are not the only ones who have to be paid for their work. GW advocates also get grants and attend conferences. Most universities are very preoccupied with getting foundation and government grants. The money goes disproportionately to the advocates, and ALL the threats to one’s career go to the skeptics. I think it’s better to actually wrestle with someone’s argument rather than just cast animadversions on his character. Our investigations can seldom penetrate a man’s character. The graph which was presented by Don Easterbrook seems to me to correctly depict the IPCC’s predictions at one time, in spite of the many accusations against him– none of which reproduce the graph, let alone quote the IPCC’s predictions.
Global Warming is an establishment position which is pushed in the MSM, which means it’s being pushed by the powers that be, including the oil billionaires. It’s typical of them to put money on BOTH sides of an issue in order to control its presentation. If it is a hoax it’s because they are using it to increase their power, the only thing they value more than money. To stymie development is a way to hold the whole world back; they’re at the top of it now, so they don’t want too much change.
If I find the CO2/water vapor argument as undeniable as you do, I expect I’ll be imbued with the same sense of urgency. It must be terrible to feel that there is an emergency that you’re not able to awaken others to. Rather like I feel about the political situation now. I’m going to put the results of my this evening’s GW research on the next post, as this has become much too long. Thanks again for your time; it’s been helpful as I didn’t know where to find the strongest arguments.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 24 2015 10:02 utc | 174

Glad to hear that GW is -maybe- not a hoax.
http://www.reasontofreedom.com/ten_reasons_to_love_global_warming.html

Posted by: From The Hague | Oct 24 2015 12:24 utc | 176

Penelope@174/5:
I’m going to wrap this up pretty quick: will check here next couple days, but this not the place for this discussion & I have a pretty fully pate right now. RealClimate comment section pretty good about according newcomers at whatever their knowledge level. There’s a few impatient, “curmudgeons”… but plenty others who will answer questions and provide specific references to specific questions. You posted links to “SkepticalScience”, they’re pretty good there as well.
So…. Plunging right in:

I STILL haven’t reviewed the tape; I want to know exactly what the reservation was about the lack of demonstration of an experiment that proves CO2 & water vapor interact as is presented by GW hypothesis.

It’s not explained by any of the panelists on that video: just summarily dismissed.
A “hint”: this determination (CO2 as “forcing”) not amenable to an “experiment”. Creating a simulation environment with all of the variables in upper atmosphere (multiple influences from near/deep space for ex:) would “taint” results. Chemical content of upper atmosphere too complex and variable as well. Links I provided a lot of how this is determined from data collection/analysis etc. in real environment, and how the “mechanics” (expressed mathematically) describing this have “held” very well, in real time. (EG. reliability of modelling). Many cycles now of test/sample, model >> simulate, improve model then rinse and repeat, have essentially eliminated 99.xxx uncertainty from CO2 as “forcing” agent. Biggest challenge (and improvement in recent years) of modelling only builds on this, and provides better accommodation of 2nd/3rd (etc.) “contributors” so that more comprehensive “effects” are better understood.
That the guys in video haven’t “kept up” with this, while “hanging on” to expert status based on long settled/demonstrated realities… this too is observable AFAIC. We all have choices (computers/internet) for where we go to be informed. It’s very easy to take one “belief” from a dynamic system, hold onto it steadfastly and refuse to be persuaded otherwise.

In the case of hockey stick it was about the only thing I COULD do given that I didn’t want to get into what appeared to be an extremely detailed argument and counter-argument as to whether the graph was a correct representation or not.

The thing about “deniers” (the deliberate obfuscators: there are (IMO) some honest ones, that are different) arguments: they use one “slice of the pie” (so many examples) which, in and of themselves, do not have “core” mechanics (eg: CAUSE… where a process begins as opposed to being at “affect” of some cause) defined, find a flaw/error/inconsistency/anomaly (noise) and use this to invalidate GW entirely.
Hockey stick data is not persuasive/certain one way or the other, as proof. It’s very useful seeing trends/curves/likely projections WHEN (by other means) cause is known. So “hockey stick” date is prime-picking-real-estate for deniers.

I liked Buckmister Fuller, too. He was so creative, but somehow they didn’t really let him use it enough

What’s “it”? His contributions (discovery really) extended far greater then most folks are aware. His “Fullerines” having increasing real world applications. His estate (which mostly now reinvests in some cutting edge research/design) collects non trivial royalties on this “stuff”. The greatest value in this was not “discovery” of another molecular constructed organic: it was generalizing the principles by which these were designed, providing understanding for man made design and customization (eg: having precise properties) of needed materials which, not available, precluded all kinds of extremely useful “devices” known to be theoretically possible. A lot of these “initiatives”, are only beginning to “catch up” with work Fuller did decades ago.
The discovery of “Bucky Balls” in deep space (Fuller predicted this) has both validated much of his work that much of mainstream physics ignored. It’s also beginning to open some doors.

(…) the knowledge that tiny quantities can be powerful comes naturally– as well as an appreciation for the systemic.

A couple drops of LSD for someone “certain” this is “preposterous” might be a good wake up call. 🙂

I find that with difficult questions you simply have to strive to find the strongest arguments on BOTH sides. And sometimes even after that you just have to be an adult and endure uncertainty.

Another pandora’s box IMO. I’ll just say maybe, for determining one’s own course in life, maybe knowing when/how it’s needed to move past “both side” knowing, that a gut wrenching uncertainty is not something one’s willing to put up with. Or FIND a way, to attain certainty. Just can’t fool oneself about this.

You know, people who are skeptical of the GW hypothesis are not the only ones who have to be paid for their work. (snip)

I prefer not to go there. People on both sides use a funding source association as a “weapon”. Same with “conflict of interest” in all kinds of activities (legal, fiduciary etc.), used as basis for determining prejudice. There’s always exceptions to this IMO.
Most people make career choices, maybe get a degree then most go to work for some biz/gov. agency/institution. And accept conditions of that environment. But then, for example… school teachers and “teachers unions” now one such basis (especially politically) used to define motive for entire category of professionals.
I just stay away from the funding part of GW science… almost always a slippery slope going nowhere, but a fight.

If I find the CO2/water vapor argument as undeniable as you do, I expect I’ll be imbued with the same sense of urgency. It must be terrible to feel that there is an emergency that you’re not able to awaken others to.

I just turned 60. Had 4 entirely distinct careers. I mentioned about my environmental work here (briefly): I’d never done this before. Always been “out doors” lover, hiked most of Muir trail several times, mostly get around on my roadbike, pretty fit.
I’ve had opinions on environment for a long time, gave $$ over the years to Muir Society, Sierra club, Audubon and few others. But never jumped into a “fight” before.
This one here, going up against US Air Force and EPA over (arguably) largest spill by volume of toxicity into a public water supply in US history. It was an imminent, very wide ranging (eg. potential to affect 1000’s) public health threat and was being ignored and denier in more ways then I can count.
I stopped everything else, and put 3.5 years full time (80 weeks) into this. It is/was very complex, but child’s play compared to the GW thing. We’ve “won in that”, we were able to create enough momentum to “prove” to enough of the community we had this right, the Air Force was more or less shamed into taking action. They’ve spent more in last 18 months on this, then first 25 years they knew about it, told ABQ it was “ok”, and did next to nothing. The solution though is largely “containing” the 1.5 X 3/4 mile plume of EDB in our aquifer, not cleaning it up (technology very possible, and not hugely expensive).
I more or less “hung up my spurs” on this almost a year ago. The game essentially was, using whatever means available to persistently persuade a lot of skeptical people of a provable reality right underneath 1000’s of people’s homes. Proving a reality, honestly… that’s all. Huge interests here, in denying this (Kirtland AFB is ABQ’s economic driver: $3.5 > $4 billion p/year “injected” into our local economy).
This was hugely eye opening experience. I had firm belief most “intelligent” locals, apprised of this, would get behind ensuring the AF did their job (cleanup). I was very, very wrong. This was the hardest part.
ABQ’s “containment” of this jet fuel spill, however, is a much better result then most of US communties “toxified” by various DOD installations (there are many: over 50 Air Force bases alone on Superfund, with only a handful financed even close to adequately).
So anyway, you said… “must be terrible to feel that there is an emergency that you’re not able to awaken others”: it’s damn frustrating, and for me hugely challenging in more ways then I can explain. It’s expensive (nobody opens their wallet to help), a lot of local power brokers will come after you (same everywhere), and there’s every reason to give up. Most of that has changed now: key locals in both AF & EPA I have really good relationships with now that their DOING SOMETHING. Even gratitude from a lot of ’em.
I’d like to be able to write a manual on how to execute environmental change. But if there is one, I don’t see it: I think doing this is a lot of “art”, and different almost everywhere. I do think one of the keys is: the momentum must come from the community (locals), not rely upon institutions (AF/DOD/DOE/EPA etc.). It just has to come from the community, it’s the only thing that’s moves things.
But I’m done. Moving to Vietnam in March for a new adventure. 🙂
I think not even close to enough people planet wide ready to do “whatever it takes” to tackle climate problems. Without judging, I don’t see it likely in my life time. Don’t know if we need large swath of disasters/death or not… we’ll see. I do think understanding this well, however, has given me advantages that will play out for a quite satisfying last +/- 1/3 of my life, however.

I’m going to look at the realclimate site about the possibility of rising ocean levels too. I did look at the “Acidification of the Ocean” argument, starting with the link from skepticalscience (snip links)

Good for you! Suggestion: rising ocean levels much better generalize “canary in the mine” then PH. PH goes more to health of ocean (ability to support life), ocean level much more towards GW indicators (mostly from melting glaciers AND expansion of oceans… eg. heat expands water). The other reason: acidification is predominately initiated by introduction of carbon in the oceans (there’s other minor influences). A good % of this “source” carbon comes from runoff (snow/rain): simply carbon “washed” from city streets/building, plants and trees. So *this* carbon source is definately a product of residue from fossil fuels, but not directly from the actual warming “mechanics” (eg: from upper atmosphere). The distinction, however, is peripheral to scientifically (observationally) validating man made warming. Interestingly (at least to me), the distinction is irrelevant to further persuading of the increasing need to break dependence on fossil fuel simply to restore/preserve natural operations of planet health.

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2014/12/mwacompilationofglobalocean_phjan82014.jpg Also Hawaii. Shows extension back to 1910! Result is an oscillation, as with so many natural phenomena, without a substantive trend.
–What might be the basis of the oscillation? No very obvious periodicity.

I can’t answer that one, sorry. Chart says 1.5 million sources (I assume samplings): this is global, or (am I misreading you?) Hawaii? If it is local, my best “guess” would be some unique, significant “local” event. No idea what that could be, off top of my head.

Peaks of alkalinity approx 25 years duration, Valleys approx 10. What wd have a total cycle periodicity of 35 years? Or, counting centers of each Peak & Valley, periodictiy is a nearly perfect 20 years. Not helpful. Is there a schedule for regular circulation upsurges? Unknown.
Pacific Decadal cold/warm periodicity said to be 30 years. Effect of water temp on CO2? Cold water holds more CO2, so less alkaline. (the Valleys)

I’m not sure about any of that, I’d have to go review (don’t really have time). I don’t recall how long this has been sampled either (10/40 years or ???). I am pretty sure the peak/valley trends you cite are not correct but would not swear to it (willing to be corrected).
I’ll take a somewhat educated guess at the oscillations. First, sources (points, locations) of CO2 introduction into Oceans is both random and relatively constant. Meaning for example, very large storms generated from areas which at a given time have statistically high CO2 content (above average) perhaps by tradewind transport or (???) are known to affect both ocean/CO2 readings when sampled soon after such an event. These are “random”… can occur anywhere. The more constant ones come from runoff sources, especially in areas near significant coal generation (eg. coal burning leaves much higher carbon residue).
Dispersion rates in the oceans take a while. Again, I’m not up on precision/time frames, but this happens over (often) years, just for one significant carbon “introduction” event. The PH levels locally are affected fairly quickly (more acidic). However, dilution as both the CO2 disperses AND “local” seawater is diluted after these local “spikes” looks in measurements like spikes and valleys, but more accurately interpreted as initial reading of an “introduction” even followed by distribution (dilution) not unlike stirring some salt into a glass of water.
The other thing is that, higher CO2 concentrations tend to migrate down to greater ocean depths (when their is a deep floor: wouldn’t happen over corral reefs for example). I don’t remember what the good literature said about this for sure, but I believe it’s been demonstrated that, absent repeated CO2 introduction locally, PH/CO2 will “spike” locally to certain depths (2-300 ft. maybe?), then migrate down to depths with this surface area returning to +/- it’s level prior to the “event”. So basically (one of the elegant/great things one comes across in looking at this stuff), at some point over the course of large volume and frequent CO2 introductions, looking at baselines (averages between hi/lows) trends are evident: the systemic functioning of the ocean and these affects operate independently of atmosphere. Or, it is it’s own climate-influencing-sub-system which begins to take on new/altered equilibriums. And we see this in almost every significant “player” in the whole system: trees/forests (their health), very very dry ground in the increasingly more common “drought” areas which in turn provide less “nutrition” for soil micro-organsims needed for health of so many “growing things”…
It’s not too hard, upon close examination, to see how “tipping points” happen in multiple subsystems all playing a role in global climate. And this is part of what makes it so hard to predict conditions when tipping points are crossed: I’m not aware of any disciplines able to understand how this will “play out”.
Ok Penelope, so much for today’s round on GW. 🙂

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 24 2015 21:03 utc | 178

The russians supposedly have a powerful radar station in the syrian city of Aleppo. And that is the most likely reason why that power station in Aleppo was destroyed in the past week(s).
Radar stations need electricity to operate, capisce ?

Posted by: Willy2 | Oct 24 2015 21:24 utc | 180

in re 181
Since you didn’t actually raise an argument, as much as technical quibbles and unsupported assertions, I’m not that interested in winning by default.
I am interested in military affairs. And proletarian leadership, with Greece as a current case study. And if you affect to take it personally, this is not my problem.
Now go find a nice troll and try to tag team me, O.K.? That’s been your M.O. to date, hasn’t it?

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 25 2015 3:38 utc | 182

Penelope@183
Hi. Best wishes w/your research and “enlightenment” on this, and (hopefully) clarification of GW realities.
I took a few minutes to look into some PH “stuff” after reading your post. Not going to get into long discussion, but if found out some stuff I didn’t know. In particular, I had assumed PH monitioring was as comprehensive as temp/CO2 (eg: based on same vast monitoring network) but it’s not. PH monitoring is far more sparse, new, and uncertain. Also found out my “educated guess” on the spikes, in the ballpark but missing other important components.
Anyway, since you’re diving into PH, a couple references for you:
– US “acidification” research done by these guys: OAP, a sub agency of NOAA. Not much data there, but some good general info.
– OAP one of many in mostly Fed gov. programs around the globe participating in same work jointly. They are: Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification. (IWG). More data resources here then OAP.
– IWG’s latest report, 2015, is here. I read it, worthwhile.
In short, we (world doing this) not nearly as precise in PH studies/information as I thought. Those spikes largely expected from reasons I said, sparse (still) sampling stations, and a lot of local variables. A decent discussion of this is here.
FWIW, I don’t think your conclusions about PH periodicity are correct at all, not even in the ballpark. Be careful to draw meaning from data, before really understanding the data. If you really want to pursue this, recommend inquiries on RealClimate or skepticalscience. I think they could save you a lot of time.
I also question that Pacific in “cold phase” (PDO). Read not to long ago, from some of sites I’ve recommended, strong indications that long established PDO patterns are now breaking down as we get closer to tipping points. This is somewhat discussed here. I know some of the best IPC researchers on this in last year or so, agree with and have been predicting what that article says.
Regardless, (as I mentioned) PH as GW indicator will be a poor (and with limited monitoring) and misleading because it is many times removed from GW forcing, and very susceptible to non-GW induced variables in Oceans. CO2 measurements come much closer to cause and will be correlating to cause far far quicker then PH.

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 28 2015 23:49 utc | 184