Oppenheimer and the Empire of Doom

 

"I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." (Dwight D. Eisenhower)

We are living on borrowed time. The development of the atomic bomb by the U.S. ushered in the predictable creation of a nascent doomsday machine. While some of the scientists were encouraged to believe that the bomb was intended as a retaliatory weapon against a possible Nazi atomic bomb, the final work was completed after it became clear that Nazi Germany either abandoned or never had a serious nuclear program. The U.S. program was completed and two bombs assembled with the clear intent to use against two undamaged Japanese cities in what can only be described as monstrous war crimes and mass murder of civilians even as a defeated Japan was seeking to negotiate terms of surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were put to the nuclear sword both to test these new weapons (one had a uranium core, the other plutonium), and to send a signal to the Russians that we had this new weapon and were sufficiently ruthless to use it even if not required to end the war. Please note that Eisenhower's opinion implicitly suggests that war crimes and mass-murder are acceptable if they "save American lives." 

To put Hiroshima and Nagasaki in perspective, it should be noted that neither Eisenhower nor other members of the top brass raised objections to the firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 which killed a minimum of 100,000 defenseless civilians in yet another U.S. major war crime. This was followed by repeated firebombings of Tokyo and other Japanese cities in April and May in which hundreds of thousands of Japanese died hideous deaths even as the U.S. ignored Japanese attempts to enter surrender negotiations insisting instead upon unconditional surrender as a means to prolong the war to permit the completion and use of the atomic bombs. To the psychopathic rulers of empire, mass murder to achieve imperial objectives is somewhat routine. So the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki broke no new moral ground. What it did do was to develop nascent doomsday weapons which would predictably put the imperial decisions makers' children and grandchildren and all of humanity in severe danger. All empires rely upon mass murder, terror and torture to impose their will upon subject populations. The uniqueness of the of the atomic bomb was that it would eventually put the imperial leaders and their families in danger, a startling development indicating the degree to which those who lust for power exhibit extreme myopia as they pursue their objectives, the consequences of which are mostly ignored as distractions which interfere with their narrowly focused actions. These are not thoughtful people although they may be highly intelligent in the narrow sense of the term. If nuclear disarmament could have been achieved in 1945 by the U.S. simply not building and using the atomic bomb, what chance is there now in escaping eventual nuclear annihilation? 

To be perfectly clear, the current nuclear threat to the survival of humankind and to much of the natural world was created by the U.S. when it developed and used the atomic bombs during World War II, and to the subsequent nuclear arms race initiated and sustained by the U.S.. This was done by the so called liberal Roosevelt administration backed by the Democratic party. The Democratic Truman administration continued this policy of nuclear development along with the use of nuclear threats as a means of coercion in order to achieve imperial objectives. This was done despite the obvious implications for the threat to human survival posed by the advancement of these systems of unprecedented mass murder. This use of doomsday weapons as instruments of imperial power seeking was pursued despite the threat these weapons and their potential use posed to the American society itself. This policy and these actions can only be described as insane, the actions of sociopaths and psychopaths who have created an environment where human survival, including the elites and their children, is increasingly unlikely. What were they thinking? We have always known that they were capable of mass murder when it suited their purpose, but to put themselves and their descendants in such jeopardy is, I think, unprecedented. So those who exult in the "success" of Oppenheimer and the Manhattan project should reflect upon how this legacy will impact them and their loved ones.

Gore-y BS

 

“If we get to true net zero, astonishingly, global temperatures will stop going up with a lag time of as little as three to five years. They used to think that positive feedback loops would keep that process going. No, it will not! The temperatures will stop going up. The ice will continue melting and some other things will continue, but we can stop the increase of temperatures. Even better, if we stay at true net zero in as little as 30 years, half of all the human caused CO2 will come out of the atmosphere into the upper ocean and the trees and vegetation.” (Al Gore) https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/08/18/al-gore-vs-oil-rich-dubai-host-of-cop28/

The above comment was made at a recent TED talk in anticipation of the upcoming COP28, 11/30/23 - 12/12/23. According to Gore, "We have everything we need and proven deployment models to reduce emissions 50% by 2030. It will require (1) more solar and wind (2) more regenerative agriculture (3) more EVs (4) more charging stations (5) more energy storage (6) more green hydrogen (7) and more electrolyzers to produce it."

In my last two essays, I highlighted the irrational denial of global warming by many of those who are resisting the global restructuring of society and by those who have something to gain by their denial and/or are expressing a form of ideological solidarity with their reference group. In this essay, I am highlighting the other major group which while acknowledging the reality of global warming are greatly misrepresenting what can be done in order to push an agenda which will have little effect on actual global warming but will restructure society in such a way as to benefit the global elites. We have entered a period where ideology and opportunism shape the discourse.

Notice, please, that Gore has 7 solutions which he claims will enable us to halt and reverse the consequences of the massive and rapid increase in greenhouse gases caused by the burning of fossil fuels upon which our society is totally dependent. In the article by Robert Hunziker which I am quoting from, he notes that when these COP meetings began in 1995, the annual CO2 emissions were 21 gigatons and, despite pledges to reduce emissions, have increased every year and now are 36 gigatons per year. In short, the notion that we can get to true net zero carbon emissions anytime soon is absurd. No doubt Gore has studies which rely upon accounting gimmickry to say we can. If you have sufficient funding, you can always find "experts" to say what you want to hear. In the real world,however, it is not going to happen. Not even close.

When Gore talks about how rapidly global warming can be stopped and CO2 removed from the atmosphere, one can only wonder if he actually believes this. He references a non-per reviewed one page summary by a sycophant professor (the deniers have their "experts" too) which Gore misrepresents in any event. In my "Gloom and Doom" essay, I reviewed the natural rate of CO2 reduction during the previous cycles and determined that the current CO2 level would require 34,000 years to return to preindustrial levels if Mother Nature was consistent and actual glacier analysis was our guide (see http://www.co2 levels.org/ ). To propose that the natural environment will remove CO2 500 times faster than anytime during the past 800,000 years (half in 30 years) is an insult to the intelligence. And to suggest that the current level of CO2 of 420 ppm will not cause additional warming is totally irrational. Unless, of course, it is but a rational pretext to achieve certain objectives in regards to the elite agenda. 

So there you have it. The two primary camps and their followers. One denying the obvious reality of extreme global climate disruption, the other minimizing the consequences of climate disruption already baked in, along with wildly exaggerating the prospects for change in order to promote the elite agenda. Both are misrepresenting reality consistent with their group agenda. Both, in their own way, are part of the problem. So, yes, resist the elite agenda as best you can realizing that the global system cannot be meaningfully changed through populist activism. Instead, extricate yourself from the system as best you can. And keep in mind that we are entering a period of runaway global warming which will have major consequences, some of which will be catastrophic leading to chaos and social disintegration. And perhaps nuclear war which seems increasingly likely. This possibility is in no small measure a consequence of the U.S. development of the atomic bomb as an instrument of imperial domination and control. Think about that if you go to see the movie "Oppenheimer."

Gloom and Doom (rev 9/3/2023)

 

In my previous essay titled "He Who Pays the Piper," I discussed how the various individuals/groups spin their narrative to obtain funding regardless of empirical reality. My concluding example involved global warming. I pointed out that even a cursory examination of the available data indicated that this was not part of any natural cycle. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are equivalent to 60 times volcanic CO2 emissions resulting in a rapid CO2 buildup of 136 ppm (284 ppm 1850 versus over 420 ppm current) which far exceeds the 98 ppm increase from the low (186 ppm) during the last ice age (21,500 years ago) to the preindustrial (1850) high of around 284 ppm. This equates to a 0.44 ppm/100 years rate of increase. In the previous essay, I used a different cycle to get a more robust rate of increase of 0.8 ppm/100 year rate of increase. The current rate of increase is 118 ppm/100 years and climbing, which means that we are accumulating CO2 148 times faster that the 0.8/100 year rate, and 268 times faster than the 0.44 ppm /100 years rate. Obviously, this is not a "natural" cycle rate of increase. (see http://www.co2 levels .org/ ) I also indicated that temperature data lagged behind the greenhouse gas buildup, therefore, the rate of increase was "only" 56 times that of the natural cycles, but increasing as the CO2 accumulation rapidly increases, worthless treaties notwithstanding. 

In the previous essay, I also indicated that real global warming is being used as a pretext to institute changes that are designed to enhance elite social control yet do little, if anything, to actually reduce carbon emissions. Barring nuclear war (a very real possibility), I predicted a 2 degree above preindustrial by 2050, increasing to 5 to 6 degrees C by the end of the century based upon current greenhouse gas levels and likely increases. For those that hope for some sort of rapid reduction in greenhouse gas levels, I have some bad news. While humans have the capability to rapidly increase greenhouse gas levels by burning fossil fuels, there does not exist nor is there likely to exist in the foreseeable future the ability to eliminate massive quantities of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Realistically, the best we can count on is the natural reduction of greenhouse gases which appears to take longer that the natural buildup of the gases during the climate cycles. This rate varies, however, the maximum from the last cycle appears to be about 0.5 ppm/100 years. If we assume that CO2 will continue to accumulate to at least 450 ppm, then the natural reduction to preindustrial 280 ppm will take at least 34,000 years minimum. We appear to be locked in to a global climate catastrophe caused, essentially, by elite power seeking without regard to the broader consequences of their actions. One would have thought that with massive fossil fuel consumption the consequences of emitting millions of years of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in about 150 years would have been considered. Additionally, globalization is all about global social control and power at the expense of local autonomy and local survivability. Yet, the power-seeking psychopaths who rule us are much less concerned about the long term survivability of the species than in short term power dynamics. And while the global warming deniers claim that the elites are trying to frighten the populace into making ill advised changes (true enough), the reality is that the elites are promoting unrealistic hope for solving the climate crisis. Unfortunately, I have concluded that little can be done to mitigate the consequences of the current level of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and that little significant action to curb emissions will be undertaken in any event. The elite agenda appears to be to restructure global society in such a way as to safeguard elite interests in the new era.

Before I offer some concluding comments regarding the implications of all of this, I need to rant in regards to the complete lack of intellectual integrity of the anthropogenic global warming deniers. I became aware of websites such as the Corbett Report, Off Guardian and UK Column during the initial phase of the COVID- 19 psyops. They seemed at the time to be relative voices of sanity in a sea of MSM BS. Now that we have entered increased awareness of the consequences of climate change, they have all revealed themselves to be global warming deniers, primarily, I suspect, due to profound ideological bias. Off Guardian published an article on 8/8/2023 by Iain Davis which is all too typical of this contrarian garbage. Allow me to quote: "Noel Coward wrote the song “Mad Dogs and Englishmen,” advising people to avoid sweltering midday temperatures, in 1931. It went down well because it was funny and something people could relate to. Probably because the 1930s was the hottest decade of the 20th century." (Iain Davis) https://off-guardian.org/2023/08/08/the-infuriating-climate-alarm/

The 1930s was the hottest decade of the 20th century? Davis links to an article in Watts Up With That, a denier website, by author Professor Patick Michaels, a professional climate skeptic funded by the fossil fuel industry. The article indicated that the write up is 11 years old. Another quote: HEADLINE: "Newly found weather records show 1930's as being far worse than the present for extreme weather" ARTICLE: "Sure is hot out! And what better time for a paper to appear in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology describing the construction of the “all-time” records for various types of weather extremes for each of the 50 United States plus Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands." (Patrick Michaels) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/14/newly-found-weather-records-show-1930s-as-being-far-worse-than-the-present-for-extreme-weather/     

Putting aside the veracity of the article, note that Iain Davis has grossly misrepresented some sort of study dealing with "each of the 50 United States plus Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands." , implying that the 1930s were the hottest decade of the 20th century globally. The article was in response to reportage of extreme temperatures in Europe and Davis disingenuously ties the 1930s decade with a Noel Coward song implying how hot it was in England in the 1930s. This is a profoundly dishonest piece of anti-global warming propaganda. If we go to https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt , we can easily determine for ourselves that the 1930s had a temperature anomaly of (11.5) in 0.01 degrees celcius versus the base period of 1951-1980. In other words, 0.115 degrees C cooler than the average for 1951-1980. Hottest decade? Try 1990-1999, the last decade of the 20th century which saw an ever increasing temperature far in excess historical cycles. If we do, we'll see that the average anomaly for the decade was 38.5, or 0.385 degrees C warmer than baseline and 0.50 degrees C warmer than the 1930s. This equates to a 0.833 increase/100 years, about 28x the historical average. This is less than the 56x times non-anthropogenic  rate I show in my previous essay because we are dealing with an earlier time frame with less greenhouse gas buildup. Comparing 1990-1999 with 2010-2019, we get a 0.42 degree C increase over a scant 20 years which equates to 2.10 degrees/100, a whopping 70x versus historical. As I indicated previously, the sharp increase in greenhouse gas accumulation is far ahead of the theoretical equilibrium temperature and is causing increasingly rapid temperature increases. You don't have to be a scientist to see where this is heading, and you have to be an ideologue or desperate for funding to deny that it is happening. As previously noted, we have entered a transition period where ideology and opportunism shape the discourse, and where intellectual integrity seems a luxury. 

Let me conclude by noting that the high point of most previous natural cycles had a temperature anomaly exceeding our current one. That won't last for long. The current rate of temperature increase is so far in excess of previous cycles that the equilibrium temperature in regards to the greenhouse gas accumulation must be well above our current temperature. Since the growing greenhouse gas accumulation will be with us for a long time to come, we and future generations can look forward to rapidly rising temps for centuries to come. This rapid and sustained temperature increase following the natural increase at the end of the last ice age may result in the complete melting of all glaciers and sea ice. Humans have initiated a process which we are now more or less powerless to stop which will result in a totally new climate regime, one unable to support the conditions of civilized life, or possibly much of any life for that matter. We are headed for dark times with no obvious solution.