Moderates United

It CANNOT be the case both that both poles are seeing increases in their ice sheets, AND that we are seeing colder winters, IF one still wants to claim the Earth is warming.  This is a fool’s game.  It is stupid, counter-intuitive, gutless, lemming-like.

This is a cut and paste from a post that may well be deleted (from Mother Jones, and it looks like they are going the disengagement and suppression route, which of course is needed if they want to continue to defend the indefensible.  Edit: yes, they are tired of having to defend the indefensible, and have blocked me, which is always what happens on left wing sites.  They are not interested in either truth or a multiplicity of opinions; quite the contrary.  They call themselves liberals, but they are ANTI-liberal):

It increasingly seems to me that unresolved trauma is at the root of a two branch decision tree of good and evil.  Those willing to learn to process it become good.  Those who cannot process it, who have too much, or who run from it in fear, become bad people.  They become, to be clear, dissociated people, cut off from the waters of a happy life, of the possibility of nurturing connection, of hope, of love.

I have defined evil as the internalized acceptance of self loathing, and I think that gets very close.  It is embracing the horrors in your gut, and seeking them out, inflicting them on others.  It is the embrace of the emotion of disgust.  One sees this very clearly in Sade.

Human civilization, if we are to advance, must learn to first grant the ubiquity of unrecognized trauma (much of it, to be clear, unintentional, such as birth trauma.   Much trauma also comes from the emotional unavailability of parents who are themselves traumatized, as in my case, who pass trauma on through a lack of love and nurturing.), and learn to deal with it en masse, and consciously.

I use the terms Good and Evil, but I am not a moralist per se.  I believe judgement is sometimes necessary, but I would argue strongly in the abstract that our task is not to categorize people, but to help them, to understand them, to recognize that they are dealing with things we don’t understand, and that we all have breaking points.  All of us.  Subjected to the right sort of trauma, ALL OF US, without exception, will snap, will dissociate to the point of open psychosis.  Many around us dissociate to the point of semi-psychosis.  Most of us are a bit crazy.  This is nothing new.

Ah, I’m rambling.  Time to move on.  Hopefully this is useful for something.

I have been having dreams like that, but in my own case it is, I hope, prelude to finally stumbling upon a sense of self.

Without sharing details–some of this does get quite deep–I have been having odd variants of the running away from something dream.

The phrase titling this post came to me this morning, pondering all this.

The nature of trauma is that it steals life from you, steals emotions, steals possibilities–of hope, of the future, of being fully present.

And until it is fully processed, it creates pressure on your conscious mind.  It says “look at me, feel me, deal with me.  I’m all alone and you need me.”  It is almost literally like “it” has a mind of its own; and given what I have learned about how it is stored in the viscera, in a sort of meta-brain, a primitive, atavistic, very old brain, this is probably not an inapt metaphor.

This is the essence of dissociation, in which our rationality is placed one place, and our innate sensations, our visceral sensations, our gut instincts, placed somewhere else.  You become, unnecessarily, divided between man and animal.

I have argued that modern inability to process trauma leads to abstraction, but can we perhaps also posit that the very EASE with which we can absorb ourselves in abstractions–think of what a computer programmer, or intelligence analyst, or accountant does all day–makes it also easier to postpone the reckoning.

If you live a hard, physical life, the trauma may get “processed” by making you mean, but you remember it.  You are openly hostile and cruel, and not through removal of emotional connection and passive aggression.

In summary, small quantities of radiation from excited Greenhouse gases, at frequencies corresponding to a transparent window of the atmosphere, provide direct feed back of heat towards the earth, causing some heating, and towards outer space producing cooling.  The proportion of this free radiation, relative to the amount of excitation energy trapped in the Greenhouse gas, is a characteristic of the gas and will be independent of both the total heat energy present and the concentration of a given Greenhouse gas.

 [The calculations show] that there is little significant difference between the spatial distributions of heat captured by the Greenhouse gases along a vertical column within the troposphere, for a range of concentrations equal to that defined at present, nominally 380 ppm of CO2 and possible future concentrations of 760 ppm and 1140 ppm.  While it is not possible to calculate the actual proportion of energy returning to the earth via these very low frequency photons passing through a transparent atmosphere, the proportion relative to that held by excited CO2 molecules will always be exactly the same, irrespective of the total amount or density of carbon dioxide present. 

The findings clearly show that any gas with an absorption line or band lying within the spectral range of the radiation field from the warmed earth, will be capable of contributing towards raising the temperature of the earth. However, it is equally clear that after reaching a fixed threshold of so-called Greenhouse gas density, which is much lower than that currently found in the atmosphere, there will be no further increase in temperature from this source, no matter how large the increase in the atmospheric density of such gases.

I have been misunderstanding this.  What they are arguing, effectively, is that half the heat trapped winds up escaping and having a cooling effect, and the other half of course has a warming effect, and that beyond a certain concentration the quantity of CO2 doesn’t matter.

It is my understanding that ALL models of CO2 accumulation posit a relatively decreasing effect per unit as quantities increase.  No sane mind can fail, then, performing basic logic on this idea, to grasp that at some point further increases do NOTHING, which is what this paper argues.

James Hanson got his start worrying about Earth becoming Venus.  Unless we move into Venus’ orbit, this will not happen.  How hard is it to grasp that any planet as much closer to the Sun as Venus is will also be that much hotter?  We are of course much hotter than Mars, which in turn is much hotter than Pluto. 

I listened to this all the way through.  Apparently a good program was developed by the NSA to listen to everything would-be terrorists might have to say, for cheap, back in 2000.  It was rejected in favor of listening to substantially everything, and he resigned in protest against this patent abrogation of the Constitution, and abrogation of what was NEEDED to protect Americans.

He has since evaluated the evidence of a controlled demolition of Tower 7 and reached the inescapable conclusion that NIST did not do SCIENCE.  They did not do their work.   They did not fulfill their responsibility.  He has signed the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition, calling for a new investigation.

As I have argued repeatedly, no one familiar with basic science can accept the NIST explanation of the collapse of Tower 7 and this necessarily means that more people were involved than have been identified, and that both Towers 1 and 2 may have gone down the same way.

Given the wars we have fought on the basis of 9/11, this matters a LOT.  Was it the Rockefellers in part, as Aaron Russo alleged (credibly)?  Who else?  Can we escape the sense that a police state was the goal, and fear the means?  

Watching, it occurred to me that in great art you feel an open connection between the art and your unconscious/deeper self.  This connection permits movement in that realm, which is normally hermetically sealed.

Finding this connection, or permitting this connection, takes time and practice opening yourself up.

With regard to this movie, the last vignette is particularly enjoyable.  It is a vision of a beautiful society, living in harmony.  This is all possible.  We can learn to live together peacefully and joyfully.

Here is the point I wanted to make.  Investigating Sabbath candles, I found not only that you are supposed to light two, but that the eldest woman in the household lights it.

Judaism tends to be treated as a patriarchal religion, which no doubt has its share of patriarchs, but women play a central role as well, in ways which would be inconceivable in Islam.  It is logical that your faith passes through the woman, and not the man.

And are there not many strong women in the Old Testament?