Soviet suppression of science returns – in the US

In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics science was strictly controlled to be in concordance with historical materialism and Communist ideology. Much research was banned, and scientists who were allowed to continue their research were monitored by the state and restricted to official state approved procedures and outcomes. Soviet science lagged for decades, often funneled off into unproductive and spurious pursuits, such as Lysenkoist biology, and Pavlovian denial of cybernetics.

The suppression of science lifted with Stalin’s death, at least in the Soviet Union and modern Russia. But today we see the resurgence of state controlled science with the ascendency of the Trump administration and it’s far right agenda.

At the Environmental Protection Agency, nearly $2 million in competitive research awards, mostly on subjects related to climate science, have been revoked since February.

Source: EPA now requires political aide’s sign-off for agency awards, grant applications


Hurricane Harvey – Happenstance or Hyperbole?

Well, of course, who’d a thunk it? The climate alarmists are climbing on the inundated Houston bandwagon to claim that “Climate Change Worsened the Impact of Hurricane Harvey“, in 24 font headlines. No big surprise there. Everyone from Michael Mann to the neighborhood paperboy is drooling over this “proof” of the devastating effects of climate change, the New Normal™. Of course, this is absolutely, completely, unequivocally wrong. There is not the slightest bit of evidence to support this claim.

Houston itself was founded in 1836, in a swamp called Buffalo Bayou, and in the past 181 years has grown to encompass 670 square miles, 639 square miles of which is land (albeit squishy) and 28 square miles (and counting) is water. The human population of this swamp now stands at over 2,399,000 people (over 6 million in the greater Houston metropolitan area), once they all return when the water subsides.

This article by Angie Schmitt on Streetsblog USA points out the inconvenient truth that the Houston area has developed and paved over “166,000 acres of mostly former coastal prairie since 2001,” reducing the land’s ability to absorb rainfall, and exacerbating runoff into the city’s sewer systems downslope from the aforementioned development. The current flooding in Houston, hyperventilated in the press, is the result of a medium sized hurricane stalling out over the heavily developed and populated Texas coast, and Texas’s largest city. The rainfall still falling on Houston, as on any impervious surface, has no where to go but up, as the inadequate runoff infrastructure is incapable of handling the increase.

Michael Mann’s screed cites “sea level rise, sea temperatures, stalling due to weak prevailing winds which are failing to steer the storm off to sea” as climate change factors that contributed to the flooding.

Mann’s conclusions rely on vaguely referenced climate modelling results rather than observations of the real world beyond the walls of the supercomputer center. He conveniently ignores the evidence that the flooding in Houston is caused by the rain, not by a storm surge, so sea level rise is not a factor.

Mann states “Sea surface temperatures in the area where Harvey intensified were 0.5-1C warmer than current-day average temperatures, which translates to 1-1.5C warmer than the ‘average’ temperatures a few decades ago. That means 3-5 percent more moisture in the atmosphere. That large amount of moisture meant the potential for much greater rainfalls and greater flooding.”

This argument ignores the fact that energy driving a hurricane does not come from warmer ocean temperatures. Hurricanes are fed by the energy of increased evaporation due to low relative humidity over the ocean within an atmospheric low pressure system. The facile equation: warm ocean yields big hurricane has no basis in reality.

Furthermore, hurricanes have not increased in severity or frequency over the past “few decades,” even over the past century. In fact, the worst hurricane in Texas history hit  Galveston, Texas in 1900, almost twelve decades ago, with winds of 150 miles per hour, leaving 6,000 to 12,000 dead among a much smaller population than exists today (Houston’s population was 44,600), the deadliest natural disaster in US history.

Mann trots out the usual disclaimer: “… we cannot say climate change ’caused’ hurricane Harvey… we can say that it exacerbate (sic) several characteristics of the storm in a way that greatly increased the risk of damage and loss of life,” but then gives it all away by claiming, without the slightest bit of evidence, that “Climate change worsened the impact of Hurricane Harvey.”

Climate change alarmism is mired in 17th Century Cartesian thinking, exacerbated by reliance on numerical climate models which cannot incorporate the physical realities of a chaotic, nonlinear, closely coupled ocean/atmosphere system. This results in prognostications of sophomoric linear relationships which only exist in computers and the vapid political aspirations of self-proclaimed climate experts.

The damage caused by Hurricane Harvey was the result of a chaotic natural phenomenon occurring by happenstance at a location where humans have congregated and built homes and cities highly vulnerable to high winds and heavy rains. Climate change hyperbole had nothing to do with the outcome.



The Wu Way

In my search for a sane and rational way of living that does not destroy biodiversity and natural habitats for all other species, I’ve looked to other worldviews and philosophies for examples of how other cultures and societies have thought and taught about the world we all live in.

The unfortunate thing about individually focusing on Taoism, quantum mechanics, consciousness, neuroanatomy or any other named discipline is that we can’t see the forest for the trees. It’s all of a piece; the names separate out the various parts. We get so mired down in the minutia, we don’t see the whole.

As it is in the Multiverse, so it is unto the quark.

Let me take this Way in striving for a model of the totality of reality, consciousness, the Multiverse/universes/Universe and everything.

In quantum physics we identify the Multiverse as the infinite set of infinite universes, which includes our own infinite Universe. Our Universe consists of eleven dimensions, time and three physical dimensions, plus seven other tightly wrapped dimensions of which we are not consciously aware. We use mathematics to describe our Universe, the Multiverse and their eleven dimensions, because mathematics is not burdened with symbolic meaning. The “words” of mathematics are clear, unambiguous and universally understood.

The universes of the Multiverse can and do interact in startling ways, as is demonstrated in the easily reproduced double slit experiment, which also shows us that human consciousness is an intimate part of the working of the Multiverse. The double slit experiment shows us the Multiverse/Consciousness in action. When we look for light as particles, we find particles. When we look for light as waves, we find waves.

In a like manner then, consciousness consists of the Universal Consciousness as the infinite set of consciousnesses, which includes our own personal Consciousness. What we identify in psychology as the subconscious is the connection between our personal Consciousness and the Universal Consciousness through the eleven dimensional computation matrix built into the structure of our brains, as a result of human evolution within the eleven dimensional Universe. Meditation, sleep dreaming, day dreaming, imagination, intuition, deja vu and altered states are descriptions of mental states that quiet the busyness of the brain’s internal dialog so that we can experience the connection to the Universal Consciousness. This experience is difficult if not impossible to relate in words because it transcends verbal expression, cannot be objectively verified and is meaningful only to the percipient. Yet the experience is universal.

This consciousness has been known for thousands of years, by people who have tried to express the experience in many ways, many of which have become distorted, manipulated and controlled as organized religions. Others maintain oral traditions, which we call myths, that are nonetheless grounded in experience with the ineffable, and combine them with practical experiences of being a human being in the natural region they inhabit. Raven stories, coyote stories, origin stories, all carry the seed of the contact with universal consciousness.

There are some who hold that this level of human consciousness is a fairly recent development in human evolution, which would fit in with the evolution of the human brain’s eleven dimensional computation matrix. One might speculate that this development may have been responsible for the success of Homo sapiens sapiens and the demise of Home sapiens neanderthalensis.

“Where are you going with this?” says the wag in the back.

Good question!

The point of Taoism is “The Way.” This is not a judgement call; there is no “Right Way” and there is no “Wrong Way.” There is only “The Way.”

The Way is the Multiverse. The Way is Consciousness. The Way is the eleven dimensional computation matrix we carry around in this head thing of ours.

When we go against The Way, when we force things, control things, lord it over others, when we push the rope, make it happen, press on regardless, we fight against the flow of the Multiverse.

When we go with The Way, when we allow things to rise of themselves, when we wait for the cusp, pause until grokking is, go with the flow, swim with the stream, we cooperate with the flow of the Multiverse.

Our Modern Western Civilization, if that’s what it is, goes against the Way in every respect. It is the antithesis of the flow of the Multiverse. It is the cause of immense suffering in humans and untold destruction of the non-human world.

An alternative approach is wu wei, not doing, arising of itself, doing what’s natural, going with the flow. If it doesn’t arise of itself, if it feels like pushing the rope, if it resists at every turn, don’t do that!

This is a simple approach, probably too simple to have any effect. We have to start somewhere.

NOTE: I’ve referenced a lot of esoteric stuff herein without citations. If something above piques your interest, or if you respond with “Huh?” let me know and I’ll supply a bibliography. It’s about time I worked one up anyway, so I can remember where I’ve read things.

Climatism is Industrialism, not Environmentalism

The Eco-Alternative – R. Crumb

In a recent post, Climatist Manifesto, Ron Clutz gave me a hat-tip (Thanks, Ron!) for my earlier expression of the “dismay many environmentalists feel at the damage climatists have done both to science and to efforts to protect the planet from real pollution.”

In his Climate Manifesto post, Ron expresses concerns that climatism (belief in human caused climate change and its solutions) threatens present industrial society.

“Political leaders are willing, even enthusiastic dupes, while climatist tactics erode the foundations of industrial society.”

However, climatism derives from and defends that very same industrial society. It is the foundations of industrial society, industrialism, that are the ultimate cause of the myriad impacts on the non-human world, and that must be changed if humans are to reduce these impacts on all life on Earth. Climatism is the industrial approach to natural climate variation, assuming that climate change is caused by human action and is therefore subject to human control and technocratic solutions.

Industrialism is more than the technological results of the Industrial Revolution, ca. 1800. Industrialism is characterized by hierarchical social organization, the concept of progress, and technocracy based on science, technology and bureaucracy.

Industrialism embraces efficiency and expediency above all values, including the appropriation and exploitation for human use of raw materials, defined as “resources,” including living beings and the very air, water and soil on which all life depends. Industrialism goes beyond the dualities of capitalism/socialism, North/South, East/West, science/religion. Industrialism portrays technological change as progress, regardless of negative impacts on natural environments or human communities. Industrialism portrays economic and technocratic growth as desirable and inevitable and views lack of growth as stagnation. Industrialism is the basic assumption of all western societies, and, increasingly, those of Eastern traditions.

It is not the mission, nor even the intent of climatists to deindustrialize civilization. On the contrary, climatists seek means by which industrial society can continue unchanged, and define that as “sustainability.”

It is environmentalists who seek to move away from industrialism to reduce human pollution and destruction of natural habitats. It is environmentalists who propose non-hierarchical, decentralized human societies built on ecological principles, accommodating to natural cycles of resource availability and climate variation. It is environmentalists who threaten industrial society.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein

A New Direction

The previous title of this blog, Words Arranged, was adopted from my writer’s web site of the same name. It hasn’t set well with me as the title for this blog, as it doesn’t say anything about the contents deposited herein.

Mourning the Broken Balance is from a poem by Robinson Jeffers that aptly reflects my feelings about the Homo sapiens experiment, and its ultimate failure. I’m neither pessimistic nor morbid, mind you. I’m quite optimistic about the future of life on this beleaguered planet. As Jean often reminds me, a thousand years from now, everything will be OK. I look forward to that eventuality.

From: The Broken Balance

by Robinson Jeffers


Mourning the broken balance, the hopeless prostration of the earth
Under men’s hands and their minds,
The beautiful places killed like rabbits to make a city,
The spreading fungus, the slime-threads
And spores; my own coast’s obscene future: I remember the farther
Future, and the last man dying
Without succession under the confident eyes of the stars.
It was only a moment’s accident,
The race that plagued us; the world resumes the old lonely immortal
Splendor; from here I can even
Perceive that that snuffed candle had something . . . a fantastic virtue,
A faint and unshapely pathos . . .
So death will flatter them at last: what, even the bald ape’s by-shot
Was moderately admirable?

Click HERE for the rest of the poem.