The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Agency of Pseudo-Skepticism & Cultivated Ignorance

The Climate Change Alternative We Ignore (to Our Peril)

A study released this week from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics/Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Science Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, claimed the world’s oceans are warming at the same rate as if five atomic bombs were dropped into the sea every second. Breitbart News Network, 15 Jan 2020
When the Earth’s core enters an exothermic cycle, the Earth’s air-conditioning heat pump gets less efficient.

I read a very interesting study that a friend forwarded to me yesterday; one which piqued my interest in summarizing some of the research I have done over the last ten years regarding climate change. Yes, it is generally acknowledged by mainstream science and society at large that our planet’s oceans are heating very fast.1 2 The result of this warming is an increasingly unhealthy environment for our ocean’s flora, fishes, microbiota, mollusks, crustaceans and fauna.3 To varying degrees, this emergent condition threatens everything which lives on planet Earth. The vast preponderance of scientists agree that we are well underway on the sixth mass, or what could be reasonably titled, Anthropocene Extinction. Much of this the result of extreme and recent climate change brought about through man’s activity.

Now before reviewing this article I must ask two things of its prospective reader. First, if one finds them self tempted to shift their more-sciencey-than-thou underoos all askew and further then perceives sufficient knee-jerk dissonance coming on to assign me an ‘anti-‘ label – understand that I am a proponent of addressing anthropogenic global warming as a first priority for mankind. I have worked harder than 99% of this planet inside issues targeting mitigation of volatile organic compounds, alkanes, methane, carbon monoxide and dioxide contribution on the part of mankind. I have conducted professional studies regarding the value chain of carbon inside the economy, and have developed businesses and worked to change markets, with a principal focus of mitigating carbon contribution by the various industries involved. I am gravely concerned about human contribution to the the stark rise in global temperatures now obviously underway.

Second, what I am summarizing in very short form herein stems from hundreds of hours of research and literally multiple hundreds of references which I cannot possibly compile into this blog article by coherent sequence – without sacrificing the ability to deliver its core message. This is a summary of my analysis, observations and thoughts; all of which I have developed on this issue over time. It is meant to provide a framework of sponsorship behind an idea which has slowly formulated in my head. This idea is a construct, an idea which aspires to be developed into real hypothesis. As such, this work is not posed under a pretense of residing at the level of a broad-scope scientific research effort. To do full justice inside this argument would require over 350 recitations and a great deal more research on the part of mainstream science. I have nonetheless included 40 essential references within this article. One can therefore anticipate herein, a greater experiential depth and level of sourcing recitation as compared to the standard media propaganda article regurgitating the same ol’ same ol’ regarding climate change. My hope is that you find this article both challenging and refreshing. Please understand that its purpose is Ockham’s Razor plurality, and not any insistence (claim) as to a conclusive single answer.

Instead, the task at hand is to first understand this alternative concept, and then begin to consider over time the data and research necessary in proving its tenets. If it begins to fit better as a model, what we observe globally – then the construct will have served its purpose. Each component analysis within this article does however indicate its source and/or database in the related graphic (which can be expanded for viewing by clicking on each one as needed). Further then, it is my opinion that the argument itself bears soundness, salience, elegance, logical calculus and compelling explanatory power. Key prerequisites of true hypothesis. This argument should not be ignored – despite its need for further development and maturation. One person cannot possibly accomplish all which is needed in order to research this construct to its completion. Science is a often an activity of a village – and as well is a process of progression. However, science also often needs a nudge in the right direction every now and then, especially when an entire idea realm is embargoed through extreme political influences, such as those that now surround this topic.

After working in and around this field for some time however, my personal concerns regarding AGW typically have centered around these two observations:

Leftist Political Football – many of my peers and cohorts pushing the climate change message are only looking to establish unmerited political power by means of the issue – and are not really seeking to solve its entailed challenge. Typically, their eyes will glaze over when I start outlining solution concepts. I have yet to see a proposed solution from this group of fake skeptics, other than the shallow quip ‘eliminate all fossil fuels’, along with a pointing out of the bad guys (usually political opponents). They are typically more interested in who they can kill socially, and what political football leverage this issue affords them.

Lever for Goals of Socialism and Racism – many of my peers and cohorts pushing the climate change message are only looking to enforce socialism, and would be pushing socialism even if they did not know about climate change. They have no real interest in learning anything about this issue in reality. I have yet to see a proposed solution other than ‘eliminate (a straw man of) capitalism’ along with a call to violence against the bad guys (usually specific races of people they already hated). They foment a gain boost in fanaticism and precipitate frustrating and counterproductive pluralistic ignorance around this issue.

All these two realities serve to impart are problems for professionals like me in promoting and financing real solutions to climate change inside energy and agriculture. We do possess real solutions – but we cannot be heard over the screaming angry faces of the Left. We need fewer scowling children and more proactive and intelligent adults in the fray.

My greatest challenge to financing and deploying AGW solutions does not arise from the work of AGW deniers –
rather it originates as the result of activity on the part of over-zealous, arrogant and dishonest alarmists.

That all being predicated, I want to propose an additional hypothesis construct which I feel is now necessary as plurality under Ockham’s Razor. This is a construct which serves as a compliment to our current understanding of anthropogenic induced climate change – and not as a replacement thereof. The argument is not one of a false dilemma, as fake skeptics most commonly deem any alternative idea inside this issue to stand as a threat to their authority. I have not derived this idea as the result of any form of agency, rather merely a concern over the eight primary observations themselves (see below). Nobody handed me this idea – I came up with it on my own, only after exhaustive review of the data involved. The 80 year-old medium fallax error employed to dismiss this argument genre, by a wave of the hand and sciencey-sounding ‘watts per square meter’ distributed energy geophysics, merely stands as obfuscating propaganda. It is tail condition and asymmetric system ignorance. We are clearly past that point at which, if we did find that we were in part wrong on climate change, scientific culture would never be able to admit such error on the world stage.

The key issue entailed inside this argument is that of observed lithosphere and hydrosphere (oceans) heat, and these measures far-outpacing what atmospheric carbon capture models have predicted.4 This is the critical path issue at hand.

Part of The Heat May Indeed Be Coming from Beneath Our Feet

I am not a climate scientist – however, nor am I carrying anyone’s water on this issue. I do not possess an implicit threat to my career if I say something forbidden or research an embargoed idea. My efforts involve developing agricultural and green energy solutions which serve to reduce carbon ppms imparted to the atmosphere inside those industry verticals. In the midst of my work inside climate change solution development, a number of peripheral observations I have made have begun to bother me greatly. They have caused me to perceive the necessity to formulate and propose another idea. An idea that in my opinion fits the observation base much more elegantly, without forcing and in more compelling fashion than simply the Omega Hypothesis of ‘man is causing it all – no need to look any further’. These notions stem as well from my time managing an exotic materials lab, and from working with several US oil exploration companies. Don’t start labeling me, I work with green energy companies as well. My point is, that this is an idea which requires a multi-disciplinary understanding of the physical phenomena involved.

In short, my alternative idea could be titled: ‘The Heat May in Part Be Coming from Beneath our Feet’. Its exegesis (at the end of this article), derived from a series of eight primary independent observations in order of critical path dependence and increasing inferential strength, follows:

Observation 1 (Inductive-Introduces Plurality) – Fall to Winter CO2 Rise Exhibits a Northern Hemisphere Winter Solstice Pause Which Should Not Exist if All PPM is Generated by Man Alone

The chart I developed to the right depicts the annual normalized cycling of carbon parts per million as measured at the Earth’s northern hemisphere Mauna Loa observatory (blue bars) as compared to the annual geographic latitude position of the sun (orange sinusoidal line).5 6 7 One can observe the strong consumption of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere which occurs each spring and into the summer, upon the annual greening of the northern hemisphere. Take note here as to the raw power which nature possesses in mitigating atmospheric carbon, if left alone to do its work. This trend is mostly solar-photosynthesis induced as its regression matches the latitudinal declination regression of the sun each year almost exactly (the summer months in the graph). Each year however, we experience a surplus between carbon generated and the carbon which plants and algae consume (difference between the magnitude of the peak on the left and the trough on the right in blue bars) – thereby causing an annual overage in our planet’s carbon budget, if you will – a deficit which accumulates and does not go away (observable in the carbon ppm and temperature graph below).

Now consider for a moment this parallel sympathetic trend between the solar latitude (declination) and the carbon ppm mitigation effect of northern hemisphere foliage in the spring and summer – and notice that this same parallel sympathetic trend is violated in the winter months for the northern hemisphere. If one examines the right hand side of the carbon ppm bars (15 Dec – 15 Jan), there exists a taper off (flattening of ppm slope) in Carbon contribution which occurs annually each time the sun hits its most southerly latitudes – a feature which is not a signature of economic activity, as man does not just stop producing carbon in the winter and in fact produces more carbon for heating dwellings and massive levels of travel. Rather, I propose that this flatter ppm slope stems from an annual winter-cessation in solar heating of the high northerly-latitude permafrost, tundra and shallow oil formations (such as exist in Russia and between Alaska and Texas). Deeper geostrata, features and biomes which are already hotter than in the past, because of some separate influence than merely solar radiation capture. In other words, the pace of methane and carbon emission is synced very heavily with the sun’s geographic latitude – almost exclusively. One can see this inside the graph’s carbon ppm slope differential between the winter solstice period as compared to the vernal equinox period. The slope in carbon ppm’s is clearly less, during a time when its magnitude should actually be higher. This mandates plurality on the subject. Something in the northern regions of the globe responds in very sensitive ppm relationship with the rising of the sun’s geographic latitude across the Vernal Equinox (1 Mar – 15 Apr). An effect magnitude which is significantly larger than the carbon effect imbued through man’s activity during that same period.

Observation 2 (Inductive-Introduces Plurality) – Atmospheric CO2 Levels Follow Temperature Rises and Are Accelerating – Man’s Carbon Producing Activity is Linear and of Insufficient Slope to Drive This

In order to understand this correlation mismatch, one must understand what is occurring in the chart to the right. The two regressions – regressions of both Y-axis 1 – ΔT or global temperature anomaly and Y-axis 2 – Mauna Loa measured carbon ppm’s – are aligned manually and made congruent so as to remove any reference range bias. This allows the reader to make observation in perspective to a tight relationship between carbon ppm measures at the Mauna Loa NOAA observatory and the global temperature increases since 1958.8 9 But one must remember that this apparent tight relationship is forced by me, through an annual and necessary adjustment of the two-axis regression alignment. If I apply this same regression alignment (the straight line in the graphic to the right) to other timeframes as well, suddenlly the two curves do not match up as cleanly.

However, of key note even inside this clean and annually re-aligned graphic are several observations:

  • Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing by a square law. A square law means that two carbon contribution factors or more are underway, not just one. This because,
  • Economic activity levels on the part of man are not increasing by a square function – nor even this fast in slope. There was no slowdown in carbon ppm trends attributable to the global economic depression from 2008 – 2012.
  • Global temperature increases are rising discretely and linearly, while carbon ppm amounts appear to be chasing this trend by means of a continuous acceleration (man and unacknowledged natural sources serving a square law increase)
  • There is no acceleration-to-acceleration relationship anywhere inside this correlation data. There is one discrete change in temperature trend at 1965, a trend which remains linear thereafter – yet carbon ppm’s are accelerating.

In other words – global temperature increases appear to be leading carbon ppm increases – and are not solely generated by them. Otherwise we would observe a mutual acceleration, which simple does not exist in the data. Atmospheric carbon certainly will also serve to increase global temperatures – however this effect appears to be drowned out by another primary temperature change impetus. The point is that – another source of global heating is evident here – and we have ignored this, possibly to our peril. This is a very critical difference in observation from most of the material I have reviewed in the media.

Observation 3 (Inductive-Introduces Critical Path) – Mean Sea Level is Rising Yes – But MSL Variance Range is Also Increasing (and Should Not Be)

I took a sample of forty-five years worth of NOAA Tidal Station mean sea level (MSL) data from the tidal stations at Annapolis, Maryland, Bar Harbor, Maine and Montauk, New York.10 You can observe this compiled data in the graph to the right. I chose three geographically proximal sea and temperature monitoring stations in order to observe any common signal inside their data. But three also with sufficient variance in terrain so that constrictions from geographic coastal formations did not come into play within the MSL range data. The critical path issue involved regards the red variance-range bands surrounding the mean sea level rise.

Yes, it is clear that mean sea level (MSL) is rising – and this does concern me greatly. But mean sea level ranges differently by year, based on the timing of the moon. The magnitude of this variance range itself should not increase over forty-five years (and the gamut of lunar periodicity), under a simple rise-in-sea-level scenario. Yet it is. The variance range of the annual MSL is itself increasing. There exists only a very small set of possibilities by which this can occur over a large geographic region (as sampled above) – that is by a change in the position of the Moon (which we know has not occurred), a change in height (altitude) of the landmass or local ocean bottom, or by a change in local upper mantle gravitational effect upon the ocean immediately above it.

As a sailor and navigator who is familiar with and has employed mean sea level measures for decades, the migration in this variance phenomenon bothers me enormously. One can observe in the orange bars in the graph to the right, that the variance range of the annual MSL for the three monitoring stations has increased by 25% over 45 years. This is a monumental and recent change in a factor/measure which should not change at all – or cannot change without a commensurate change in local gravity. Perhaps there is another factor which I am discounting, but right now to me this is a big problem in the sea level data, above and beyond the mere matter of its rising.

Observation 4 (Deductive-Consilient) – The Schumann Resonance Banding-Amplitude Has Ranged High – While Geomagnetic Moment/Polarity has Weakened/Wandered – All Highly Commensurate with Historical and Recent Global Temperature Increases

It is a well established fact that the global Schumann Resonance range banding-power peak serves as a very precise indicator of global temperatures.11 12 Recent Schumann Resonance banding-power (not the frequencies themselves as has been errantly reported by some sources13) has ranged upwards through more of the higher frequencies inside the established eight resonance harmonics (six of which manifest in the graph example to the right); indicating a weakening in the Earth’s magnetic moment generated from its solid core.14

A comparison of electromagnetic and temperature data indicated that there is a link between the annual variation of the Schumann resonance intensity and the global temperature.

M. Sekiguchi, M. Hayakawa, et. al.; Evidence on a link between the intensity of Schumann resonance and global surface temperature; Ann. Geophys. 2006

This weakening of the Earth’s magnetic moment as indicated by the chaotic power banding in the Schumann Resonance comes commensurate with a dramatic change in the geographic location of the geomagnetic north pole.

The Earth’s geomagnetic north pole has wandered significantly in the last two decades. In those decades, the geomagnetic north pole accelerated to an average speed of 55 kilometres (34 miles) per year.15 16 One can observe this acceleration in the migration of the geomagnetic north pole in the yellow dots inside the graphic to the right, obtained from the Nation Centers for Environmental Information of NOAA (click on image to see an enlarged version).17 These yellow balls reflect the movement of the north geomagnetic pole just since 1973, while the remainder of the colors cover the timeframe back to 1590. This as well comes commensurate with a pronounced weakening of the Earth’s magnetic moment.

It’s well established that in modern times, the axial dipole component of Earth’s main magnetic field is decreasing by approximately 5% per century. Recently, scientists using the SWARM satellite announced that their data indicate a decay rate ten times faster, or 5% per decade.

Global Research The Weakening of Earth’s Magnetic Field Has Greatly Accelerated, Could Have Apocalyptic Implications for All of Us; 12 Apr 2019

While we don’t know fully what all this means in terms of global climate change, mankind can draw at the very least, the inference that substantial changes are at play in both the Earth’s inner and outer cores which serve to generate our planet’s magnetic moments. These three changes, higher Schumann banding, acceleration of geographic location as well as weakening of the Earth’s magnetic moment, run commensurate with and sensitive in dynamic to the last two decades of extreme climate change. Such changes historically have served to correlate well with global temperatures. These changes cannot be ignored as potential contributors vis-à-vis the ‘heat coming from beneath our feet’.

Observation 5 (Deductive-Consilient) – Earth’s Rotation is Slowing Faster than Historical – Indicating a Recent-Term But Constant Ferrous Mass Contribution in Phase Change from l-HCP Outer Core to l-FCC Lower Mantle

What is clear in the chronological records of the Earth is that the outer rotational body is slowing, due to a transfer of both kinetic energy and more importantly mass, from the inner rotational body of the Earth, to its outer rotational body.18 In the graphic to the right, one can observe the daily slowing of the Earth’s rotation, along with the comparative addition of ‘leap seconds’ throughout the last 55 years. There have been 27 leap second additions since 1972 according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.19 This comes commensurate with NASA Global Land Ocean Temp Index changes showing that 75% of our 1880 – 2015 global temperature index increase has been since 1972 as well. This represents the fastest addition of leap seconds (since 1880) during a period which also just happens to account for 60% of our global temp increase since 1880. This is not mere coincidence.

Our pace of addition in leap seconds (red line in the graph above) currently is many times faster than the Earth could sustain inside its angular momentum epochally. Had the Earth been slowing at this fast a pace throughout its eons of history, the planet would have come to a rotational halt by now. So we are obviously in a kind of uber-slowing phase of outer rotational body angular velocity. In the graphic to the right, one can see the simple principle that, when the core of the Earth, which spins separately from the outer rotational body of the Earth, passes mass to the outer rotational body – that outer body slows down in its rotation – and the inner body speeds up.20 Ergo, we add leap seconds at a more aggressive pace, as we have been for the last 50 years. The result of this is much akin to when a spinning ice skater extends their arms, and thereby slows the angular velocity of their rotation – mass added to the extremity of a rotating body serves to slow the rotation of that spinning body. That mass is being handed from the outer core of the Earth and into its lower mantle (part of the separate outer rotational body). This added mass is serving to temporarily slow the Earth’s outer rotational sphere faster than it typically has been slowed by the moon and ocean tides throughout its history. This extra slowing will of course will eventually end and reverse. But for now, in terms of understanding climate change, it is of significant importance. And of course, such an evolution correlates well with upper mantle activity, our next point in the observation base.

What they found is that roughly every 32 years there was an uptick in the number of significant earthquakes worldwide. The team was puzzled as to the root cause of this cyclicity in earthquake rate. They compared it with a number of global historical datasets and found only one that showed a strong correlation with the uptick in earthquakes. That correlation was to the slowing down of Earth’s rotation.

Forbes: Geologist Trevor Nace: Earth’s Rotation Is Mysteriously Slowing Down: Experts Predict Uptick In 2018 Earthquakes

Which of course segues well into our next topic, the increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity globally.

Observation 6 (Inductive-Consilient) – Recent-Term Rise in Activity of Earth’s Upper Mantle in Terms of Earthquakes and Volcanic Activity Commensurate with Temperature Increases

While we have established a link between earthquakes and the slowing of the Earth’s rotation, of course as well, there is a well established link between volcanic activity and the Earth’s climate system.21 Both of these phenomena, earthquakes and volcanic activity pertain to activity changes in the upper mantle and especially the asthenosphere.

This serves to raise the question then, is global volcanism also on the rise? The correct answer is that we do not know for sure. The tally of listed active volcanoes has grown simply because the number and geographic spread of humans on the planet have both grown substantially over the last two centuries. However, to me the Smithsonian data, a portion of which is depicted in the graphic to the right (active volcano count in blue and number of eruptions in orange), does indicate a 3 to 5 fold increase in large volcanic activity since 1800. There exists however a concerted effort to downplay this putative increase in apparent large volcanism (as well as earthquakes) observed by mankind since 1800. Subjective essays which make a final claim to science of ‘No, no, no’, submitted along with masked data which screams ‘Yes, yes, yes!’. This is perhaps for good reason since the population of Earth has grown significantly in the most recent two centuries – and as a result the number of observed active volcanoes (and earthquakes) has also risen.22 This of course does not mean that volcanism is therefore on the increase.

However I went ahead and ran my own graph on the only unbiased database I could find on the matter, which you may observe to the right.23 Despite the threats and intimidation about using their data to come to a conclusion contrary to their doctrine, I believe that the Smithsonian data shows a significant increase in volcanic activity globally. Ignorance is never science, even if its enactment supports the ‘correct answer’. This is the instance wherin an Omega Hypothesis becomes ‘more important to protect than the integrity of science itself.’ We shall have to see how this trend continues and how volcanic activity has served to impact Arctic and Antarctic ice cap formations in particular.24 I realize that this is a hot button issue employed frequently by AGW deniers, but to an ethical skeptic ignorance is never a satisfactory tactic in dealing with such rancor.

Observation 7 (Deductive-Critical Path) – Heat Anomalies are Not Entropic – Rather Bear Recurring Mantle-Like Cohesiveness – Heat is Arising Principally from Ocean Conveyance Belts at Mid-Atlantic Rise and El Niño Thermohaline Currents

Yes, we have good clear evidence of the increase in occurrence, patterning and frequency of global heat anomalies. But these anomalies exhibit other signal data which we tend to ignore. These anomalies also appear to originate at the same longitude, flow like molasses eastward around the planet geographically (one can observe the video here) and tend to cluster in mutually exclusive hemispherical Europe-Asia or Africa-Asia flow patterns, which alternate and bear fluid momentum. Such signal ergodicity cannot be ethically ignored. Examine the heat anomaly patterns/flows over the past 120 years and you will observe a cohesive and slow-fluid patterning imbued inside the occurrence of these anomalies. To a systems engineer, this is a signal pattern – and provides intelligence.25 To many other professionals it is a source of blank stares. This too is a problem.

No matter whether the heat anomaly flow is resident in the northern hemisphere or alternately the southern hemisphere, the heat anomaly itself always originates from the same longitudinal position – The Mid-Atlantic Rise: a bulge thought to be caused by upward convective forces in the asthenosphere pushing upward on the oceanic crust and lithosphere.26 This construct postulates that the Mid-Atlantic Rise is pushing more than simply mantle mass. It is pushing exothermic core kinetic energy (in a temporary cycle) as well. A cycle which is both releasing heat and serving to act as a reasonable cause of all the anomalous effects observed inside this article.

Notice as well that the cohesive dynamic of the temperature anomalies tend to begin in Europe and then extend into the Middle East, while at the same time a counter-sympathetic trend originates in Africa as well. In other words, when Europe heats up, Africa does not, and when the Africa heats up, Europe takes a break from its anomalies – which cannot be explained in terms of human carbon emissions. In other words the clumping and neural feedback signals of these temperature dynamics are following a sub-signal. An influence which resides beneath both tandem phenomena.

Observe in the graphic as well that 23 years prior to 2019, or in 1987, this flow patterning kicked into a discrete and sudden high gear. Man’s economics and industrial output did not suddenly change in 1987 into this discrete a fashion nor magnitude. This discrete change matches the temperature average increase chart I developed below, a chart in which temperature increases are preceding CO2 measures and not arriving as merely the result of them. One as well in which carbon ppm’s are accelerating, while man’s economic activity is not. What I see inside this data is something wholly different than the 1:1000 effect which can be imparted through the heating of oceans by atmospheric contribution alone. The energy contribution involved here is several orders of magnitude greater than the speed at which our carbon is binding heat into the Earth’s atmosphere – and studies confirm this27 As well, the heating of the oceans is far faster, and at the wrong depths – than can be imbued by a thin atmospheric heat content contribution.

A Case Example: The El Niño and La Niña Conveyance Effect

As a case example, lets examine the heat anomaly timing resulting from the deep ocean conveyance belts which serve to originate the El Niño and La Niña climatological phenomena specifically. In the graphic to the right, one can observe the deep ocean conveyance belt effect that pulls deep ocean conveyance (blue line) from the eastern Pacific into the highly mantle-active southerly polar latitudes, whereupon this serves to impart a heat anomaly. This heating delta T (ΔT heat anomaly) then in turn becomes El Niño as the conveyance belt turns and heads back northward and shallow (red line) along the South American coast. This dynamic system serves to generate both of these climatological variation phenomena.28 29 The map of deep and shallow ocean conveyance belts and their interdependence is called a Thermohaline map.30 In the graphic to the right one can observe that the pronounced El Niño heating and La Niña cooling effects are generated specifically by the ΔT heat anomaly which arises from that conveyance belt passing near hot Antarctic latitude mantle and volcanic activity. This is denoted as point 1 in the Thermohaline graphic. In similar fashion, points 2 and 3 just happen to reside at the Mid-Atlantic Rise heat sources which we examined earlier in this observation.

The exchange points for conversion of a deep ocean current, to a shallow ocean current are indicated as the yellow dots in the Arctic and Antarctic latitudes. But in reality deep ocean currents are in immediate contact with the abyssal layer of ocean throughout the globe, so this effect can happen anywhere, and not just at the conversion points. The key is this – if anywhere along this conveyance, the blue lines are imbued with a heat anomaly, then this anomaly will carry forward to the shallow ocean currents (red lines at points 1, 2 and 3 on the Thermohaline Map). These heat anomalies (or absence thereof) then dictate specifically whether on not the planet will observe an abnormally hot or cold year relative to the average. Keep both of these principles in mind as you read further on to Observation 8 below.

Now notice that I have placed a red and blue fingerprint by each respective El Niño and La Niña phenomenon in the Thermohaline graphic above, with red indicating a hot period and blue indicating a relative cold period. If you examine the chart to the right, one can observe that these El Niño hot and La Niña cold periods fingerprint (not simply a correlation) exactly to the timing in global temperature peaks which we identified in Observation 2 above. In this case example it is clear that deep ocean conveyance belt effects are driving atmospheric climate and not the other way around. Notice that the magnitude ΔT heat anomaly spread between simply the 2017 El Niño and 2019 La Niña is very pronounced. Notice further then that just four of these scale events can account for the entirety of the last 50 years of atmospheric climate change alone. Add in the same peak contributors from points 2 and 3 along the Mid-Atlantic Rise as well, and this explanatory basis becomes not merely plausible, but compelling. Now realize of course that this constitutes just one single example of conveyance belt impact upon global climate. There are at least 5 other similar pronounced conveyance phenomena (other than points 1, 2 and 3) we have not even taken into consideration in the graph to the right. It is no long stretch of conjecture therefore, and possibly even conforming to Ockham’s Razor, to consider that this case example in geothermal flow, therefore just might extrapolate to the entire planet’s climate patterns, including its climate change as well. Such an idea cannot be dismissed by a one paragraph statement from agency and little study whatsoever.

It is very possible therefore, that deep ocean heating bears the sensitivity effect necessary to explain the majority of global climate change,
and that further then, carbon ppm’s are chasing this statistic and may not be the sole cause of the entailed warming.

Such conjecture is not proof, however it does necessitate plurality. To dismiss this, constitutes an act of ignorance on the part of mankind.

Observation 8 (Deductive-Critical Path) – Abyssal Oceans are Absorbing More Novel Heat Content per Cubic Meter of Ocean (ΔT-gigajoules/m3) than are Surface Oceans by an Enormous Margin – This is Neglected and Highly Critical Path Climate Science

Finally, there is a highly probative and deductive climate observation set which we are ignoring as a science. The abyssal layer of oceans have absorbed more heat content per cubic meter of ocean water than has the surface layer of the Earth’s oceans. This should not happen in solely a solar energy capture global warming scenario. The atmosphere does not possess an immediate and direct way to rapidly heat the abyssal layer of the ocean (although the abyssal layer does bear a mechanism to heat the atmosphere, which we shall examine next).

We begin by outlining on the right, the well documented taper curve regarding ocean temperature progression versus ocean depth.31 As one may observe, the temperature of the ocean drops off very fast from about 300 to 1000 meters in depth. Thereafter ocean temperatures follow a linear taper until the final 500 meters of abyssal depth, wherein the temperature drops to about 0 to 3 oC. This entire temperature function is called the thermocline. The first challenge to note is that most of our climate change oceanographic measures are taken only to the 2000 meter level (surface layer or grey shaded depths in the chart to the right), leaving mankind for the most part blind as to the thermal dynamics of both the deep (2000 – 4000 m) and abyssal (4000 – 6000 m) layers of the ocean.32 On the chart below, one can see those two layers along with a calculated thermal delta T per cubic meter of ocean water.

Over 3,000 free-drifting floats have been deployed all over the ocean and each float is programmed to sink 2,000 meters down, drifting at that depth for about 10 days. The float then makes its way to the surface measuring temperature and salinity the whole time. Data is transmitted to a satellite once the float reaches the surface, so that scientists and the public have access to the state of the ocean within hours of the data collection.

Windows to the Universe: Temperature of Ocean Water (How Climate Scientists Monitor Ocean Temperatures and Salinity by Depth)

Now that we know the lay of the land with respect to the ‘normal’ (for our intents and purposes say 1954 – 1958 timeframe) ambient ocean temperatures by depth, lets examine the temperature anomaly by those same 250 meter size depth bands which we just employed to define the natural thermocline.

If we take the known percent of Earth ocean surface, which is covered by each specific depth of ocean from 0 to 6000 meters – or what is called a hypsographic curve,33 and then use that arrival distribution to determine the percent of total ocean water, and therefore cubic meters of ocean water as well, which exist at each band of ocean depth by 250 meter intervals, we arrive at the ocean-water-by-depth cubic volume distribution curve in the third and fourth columns of the graphic to the immediate right. These two columns present the percent of total ocean water in each 250 meter-depth band, as well as then the resulting cubic meters which that percentage represents of Earth’s total 4 x 1012 m3 of ocean water (totaled at the bottom of column 3).34 This represents cubic meters of ocean water which exists on the entire Earth, partitioned into 250 meter bands of depth. As one can observe, each nominal ocean depth begins to represent less and less of the total percentage of Earth’s oceans as depths range into the lower abyssal (>5000 meters).

Subsequently, if we take the 2017 ΔT heat anomaly vs 1954, which was measured to be 148.5 zetajoules to a 700 meter depth,35 and allocate that heat content to the appropriate depth band, we arrive at the ΔT for each 250m band of the upper surface layer of oceans. Again, if we take the same heat content curve for the 700 – 2000 meter bands, and apply this same exercise, we find the ΔT for each of the 250m bands in the remainder of the surface layer of the oceans. This allows us to now calculate a gigajoule per cubic meter index for the first eight depth bands of the ocean. As you may observe in the graph to the right, those shallow ocean 250m bands have warmed substantially from 1993 through 2017, as expected from climate change impacts.36 This can be observed in the rightmost column in the graph, wherein the gigajoules per cubic meter index for the surface layer of the ocean is color highlighted by its heat content magnitude relative to the other layers (light-orange).

However, if we continue this exercise and employ the heat content change data which has been measured in the few studies which do address climate impacts at the deep and abyssal layers,37 we find a reasonable taper curve in gigajoules per cubic meter, all the way to the 4500 meter depth level. This equates to a total 2017 ΔT heat anomaly of 345 gigajoules, by means of the three studies cited. In column 4, we have distributed that 345 gigajoules by the factor of the ocean’s natural thermocline. As a note, one gets essentially the same anomaly distribution by depth if the discrete components of the heat anomaly are distributed by layer and strict study result cited herein (that heat anomaly distribution is shown in the ‘Heat Anomaly ΔT Conveyance graphic to the right). In either case, the heat content cited in the abyssal layer always forces an extreme heat into ‘small footprints’ mathematically, as may be observed as the ‘Required Heat Anomaly’ in column 5 of the graphic above. Indeed, the actual heat content changes (ΔT) measured in the abyssal layer in particular – given the much lower cubic amount of ocean water which exists at that layer depth – result in rather dramatic estimates for the required gigajoules per cubic meter index needed to resolve this heat anomaly layer and arrive at the 2017 total ocean anomaly of 345 zetajoules. One can observe this in the darker orange and red shaded high index numbers on the bottom right of the chart above.

What we are observing in this set of calculations, is that of course a heat anomaly per cubic meter of ocean water exists at the ocean surface; however, a more pronounced heat anomaly exists at the abyssal, volcanic and ocean trench depth bands of the Earth’s oceans. This abyssal heat content anomaly of course does not just sit there. Nor is it ambient. It conveys as a belt of heat content (ΔT) inside the body of a long-extant current, rising eventually up to the surface. Where it renders that ancient deep oceanic conveyor belt less effective at cooling the ocean surface and its communicating atmosphere than it has been in the past – thereby causing a net increase in global atmospheric temperatures.

It is clear that there exists an excess of heat anomaly content in the abyssal layer of ocean, relative to its volume of ocean water.
This must be examined – as it is both critical path and deductive.

In fact, two recent deep and abyssal ocean temperature studies comment upon this very observation, corroborating the necessity to begin to examine the abyssal layer and its critical path role in possibly effecting a portion of our observable climate change acceleration.38 39

Although considerable work has conclusively shown significant warming in the upper (<700 m) ocean where the bulk of historical ocean temperature measurements are found (e.g., Rhein et al., 2013, and the section above on The Observing Network), and extending down to 2,000 m during the recent Argo period, there is now a growing consensus supported by numerous studies that changes are also occurring in the deeper global ocean (>2,000 m). Based on observations below 2,000 m, it is estimated that the global ocean has accumulated heat at a rate of 33 ± 21 TW over 1991 to 2010 (Desbruyeres et al., 2016). Two-thirds of this warming is occurring between 2,000 m and 4,000 m, albeit with large uncertainty, almost entirely owing to warming in the Southern Ocean in this depth range (see Sallée, 2018, in this issue). Below 4,000 m, the observations show a large meridional gradient in the deep warming rate, with the southernmost basins warming 10 times faster than the deep basins to the north (Figure 5A). While the warming below 4,000 m only accounts for one-third of the total warming below 2,000 m, the regional variability is lower, leading to greater statistical certainty in the abyssal changes (4,000 m to 6,000 m; Purkey and Johnson, 2010; Desbruyeres et al., 2016; Figure 5A).

Durack, Gleckler, et al. Ocean Warming: From the Surface to the Deep in Observations and Models; Oceanography; 9 Dec 2018

The strongest warming rates are found in the abyssal layer (4000–6000 m), which contributes to one third of the total heat uptake with the largest contribution from the Southern and Pacific Oceans.

Desbruyeres, Purkey, et al. Deep and abyssal ocean warming from 35 years of repeat hydrography. Geophysical Research Letters

The issue therefore is not one of total ocean change in ambient heat (watts/m2 ‘budget’ as the Cheng-Abraham
study deems it), but rather one of the relative change in layer-depth heat content per cubic meter of ocean water (ΔT-gigajoules/m3).

As a final note, ignore those who speak in terms of average and ambient heat transfer statistics in ‘watts per square meter’, lithosphere taper curves or ambient heat transferred from the mantle by convection, radiation and conduction. These concepts constitute merely sophomoric understandings of oceanographic thermostatic measures; approaches which ignore systems sensitivity and incremental dynamics – in effect nothing more than ‘Mt. Stupid‘ arguments. ΔT heat content (not ambient heat) in the Earth’s oceans transfers by means of numerous and extreme small-footprint exposures along with the fourth mode of heat transfer, ‘conveyance’ – and less by means of ambient averages and principles of high school science. Systems theory, feedback and incremental dynamics are not taught in high school natural science. Ignore such dimwittery.

By means of principally these eight observations, I contend that Ockham’s Razor has been surpassed – the plurality of a new alternative explanatory climate change model is now necessary.

The Necessary and Elegant Alternative We Must Now Consider – Exothermic Core Cycle to Deep Ocean Induced Climate Change

Now with all of this observation set under our belt, let’s examine the alternative that I believe we must address – out of both ethics and precaution. This alternative is not vulnerable to the easy wave-of-the-hand single-analysis/apothegm dismissals to which so many other climate change alternatives fall prey. This does not serve to invalidate anthropogenic contribution to carbon and global temperatures by any means. But such a reality also never necessitates that mankind adopt complete ignorance either. This construct alternative can be summarized in four points.

1.  The Earth’s core is undergoing extreme exothermic change – shedding high-latent-energy hexagonal closepack (HCP) iron into the mantle where it converts to face centered cubic (FCC) iron.
2.  The exothermic heat content from this eventually reaches the asthenosphere.
3.  Ancient abyssal ocean conveyance belts pull novel heat content from small footprint yet now much hotter contribution points exposed to the asthenosphere – and convey this novel heat content to the surface of the ocean.
4.  Ocean heats atmosphere (or fails to cool it as well as it once did) much more readily than atmosphere heats ocean.

Because of the contribution of latent kinetic energy from material exiting the Earth’s outer core (and slowing the Earth’s rotation), the Earth’s asthenosphere heats up as much as 20 degrees Celsius. Most of this heat content cannot communicate with nor reach the surface of the Earth. However some of it does.

A – Ocean ridge volcanic activity is on a steady 220 year substantial increase trend. Temperature anomalies appear at the Mid-Atlantic Rise and then migrate as a fluid, eastward in an alternating southern and northern hemisphere exclusivity.

B – Deep oil formations are heated by the asthenosphere ΔT and release volatile organic compounds and alkanes (principally methane). Methane rises faster than economic activity can substantiate (which is indeed what is occurring).40

C – Deep sea solid methane traps are heated by the now warmer asthenosphere and begin to sublime into to methane gas.

D – Ocean trenches are heated by the now warmer asthenosphere and subsequently heat deep ocean conveyance currents by 1.5 to 3.5 degrees Celsius (ΔT). Heat is not simply transferred by convection, radiation and conduction – it is also transferred by conveyance, from deep exposure points, to the surface where these now warmer currents used to cool the atmosphere, however no longer do so as effectively.

E – Gas hydrate vents are heated and become more active.

F – Permafrost/Tundra is heated and releases both carbon dioxide and methane. These geoformations now become active during the winter months in which the sun is increasing in declination, whereas once they were not.

G – Historic atmospheric-ocean deep belt cooling touch points no longer cool the atmosphere as they once did, thereby resulting in an increase in overall atmospheric temperatures.

H – The catalytic decay of volatile organic compounds into alkanes, alkanes into methane and finally methane into carbon dioxide – all release latent energy into the atmosphere – indirectly and catalytically heating it.

Now let’s examine how this plays into the heat released through a temporary exothermic cycle of the Earth’s inner and outer cores.

Now of course, stepping back and looking again at the core structure of the Earth, I conjecture a scenario (albeit temporary of course) wherein the latent energy bound up in the hexagonal closepack (HCP) iron lattice of the Earth’s core NiFe (Nickel-Iron) material, is converted to heat energy upon that mass’s communication up into the lower mantle of the outer rotational body of the Earth. This HCP lattice of iron converts into a face centered cubic (FCC) lattice of iron (see phase diagram at lower left hand side of the above graphic – ΔT or ‘Delta T’ boundary) and a bevy of heat (ΔT) wound up in the incumbent latent energy release.

1. Earth’s inner core goes into an exothermic/exomaterial sloughing cycle.

2. Magnetic permeability of the Earth’s inner core falls – Earth’s magnetic field weakens, geo-magnetic north and magnetic north begin to wander in position – Schumann Resonance ranges into higher and higher amplitude power-bands (which correlates historically with higher global temperatures).

3. Inner core contributes solid hexagonal closepack (HCP) iron material to outer core across the Solid-HCP to Liquid-HCP boundary.

4. Outer core becomes exothermic/exomaterial and distributes L-HCP iron into the lower mantle, iron which snaps from an L-HCP to L-FCC lattice bravais and releases: massive KE – kinetic energy in the forms of electrical energy (electrons – number of sprites, booms and clear weather lightning incidents rise) and most importantly, heat.

5. Mantle heats up, and in turn heats the asthenosphere by up to 20o C. 1.5 to 3.5 degrees of this heat escapes the asthenosphere and into the deep ocean conveyance belts (not ambient ocean temperature).

6. Asthenosphere heats ocean conveyance belts by volcanic vents, deep troughs and other touch points in deep ocean. Heat specifically impacts deep ocean (cold) conveyance belts by raising their temperature slightly. This heat content is conveyed to the surface over the next decade of flow and is not imparted to deep ocean ambient temperature.

7. Deep ocean conveyance heats atmosphere by conveying kinetic energy in the form of added heat – and not through radiation, convection nor conduction.

8. Added heat from asthenosphere becomes genesis of novel volatile organic compounds, methane and other alkanes, from deep oil formations being heated and heating of the northern hemisphere’s permafrost and tundra.

And I contend, that this model elegantly and with ample explanatory power, addresses what we indeed see with respect to global climate change today.

Such is the state of the construct I have developed. In no way will the simple act of pondering this idea of course sway me from participating in global action regarding climate change. But neither will I conduct my activity from a position of willful ignorance.

Such is the nature of an ethical skeptic.

   How to MLA cite this article:

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Climate Change Alternative We Ignore (to Our Peril)”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 17 Jan 2020; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/01/16/the-climate-change-alternative-we-ignore-to-our-peril/

January 16, 2020 Posted by | Institutional Mandates | , , | Leave a comment

The Distinction Between Bias and Agency

Bias comes from the inside and only becomes bias when we ignore it or are compelled to act upon it. Agency comes from the outside and seeks to leverage ignorance. Bias is the prejudice of the individual. Agency is the awesome insistence of the club. Agency is that intent which seeks virtuous godship over a lesser person or at-risk stakeholder.

What is Agency?

As part of my studies of mythology and in particular Gnostic Christianity, I made an effort to transliterate my way through some of the Nag Hammadi codex material and in particular The Hypostasis of the Archons. These Second Century early-sect Christian texts were not discovered until recently, inside buried and sealed clay jars, in upper Egypt in 1945.1 2 In this version of early Christian mythology the ‘God’ which created the original failed prototype of mankind on Earth was named Samael. Pistis Sophia, the celestial and true God, took pity upon the suffering creature and made him into a fully sentient being – much to the indignation of Samael. As a result, Samael enslaved the new creature back into servitude under the Archons, or Rulers.

Samael, also called the ‘demiurge’, was a heavenly being, subordinate to the Supreme Being (Pistis Sophia), that was considered to be the absolute Ruler (Archon or Archangel) of the Earth – antagonistic to all that is celestial, enlightened and/or spiritual. Samael eventually came to be known as Ha-Satan,3 the one who in Levant mythology tempted Christ, the Son of Man, by offering him rule over all the kingdoms of Earth if he would only subjugate himself (and the coming Mankind) unto the authority of the Archons.

This Gnostic version of ancient writ was regarded as holy well before that Canonical consensus which was assembled three centuries later and eventually came to be called the Bible.4 It is no mystery why those in charge of developing that World power which would become the Christian Church would have sought to exterminate this version of scripture – causing it to flee into Egypt – because in its texts as compared to the Bible, the roles of God (Pistis Sophia, Eternal Wisdom and Faith) and Satan (Samael, Ruler of Earth) are reversed in many regards:

Of primary importance to know, is the core principal that the Chief Authority of the Rulers, Samael is spiritually blind. Because his spiritual vision was very limited in this regard, because there was apparently no one to challenge him from what he could see, and finally because he was also arrogant, he concluded that quod erat demonstrandum, he must be the most powerful entity which exists. He therefore declared himself manifestly, to be God. But as a good man knows, it is the gravest of sins to adorn one’s self in the costume of God over a fellow or lesser being.

Thereafter, the Rulers took the man Pistis Sophia had rescued from their inept hands and mercifully transmutated as well into a fully sentient being, Adam, and placed him into a great garden situated adjacent to their abode in the Levant. They tasked him to maintain and cultivate the garden. But in this garden, they had hatched another plan as well – that of a trap. The Rulers had decided to plant a Tree in the center of the garden, and to subsequently instruct their ‘Man of the Clay’, “From every tree in the garden shall you eat; yet from the tree of understanding what is not-evil and what is evil, do not eat. For in the day you eat from that tree, you will again fall under our dominion and may no longer claim this Earth which has been so unworthily bequeathed to you. You will again die like the service animal you are.” Of course the Rulers knew, that once man was told to not do something, that is the exact thing which he would elect to then do.

Nag Hammadi – The Hypostasis of the Archons (Consolidation and Transliteration)

Now of course, this cache of ancient mythological writing bears no more credibility nor lack thereof than does any other. However such mythology can stand as a form of analogue or parable relating key messages. What interests me in these passages of the The Hypostasis of the Archons, is the premise that – relative to the array of misdeeds which can be undertaken there exists no morality, there is no virtue – as every and any intent is actually good, when compared to that intent which seeks to enact godship over a fellow or ‘lesser’ being. It is not the costume one wears, nor how one appears to regard self, but rather what one does to others – which betrays the narcissist. This urge to godship is the original sin of the Archons.

Further then implicit in the Nag Hammadi mythos is the understanding that, avoiding regarding one’s self as god, and treating others accordingly is actually rather straightforward in its application:

First, there is a higher wisdom, knowledge and faithfulness (Pistis Sophia) to cherish and hold dear above all else.

Second, hold those within your reach just as worthy of this as you do yourself.

That is pretty much it. One does not have to save the world. One does not need to put on a fake humility. One does not need to extract money from hard-working people in the name of helping the oppressed refugees championed in some virtuous narcissistic fantasy. These are merely forms of godship over those ‘lesser’ than us. We are deceived often in this – that between the at-risk laborer who is harmed, and the lowly victim who is blessed, there exists an enacting, ‘humble’ and ‘virtuous’ third party who has made an implicit claim to godship inside this entire sordid play. Part of treating others as you would want to be treated, also involves holding all accountable to do their share and not simply sexually reproduce beyond sustainability and confiscate the workfruit of their fellow beings (through that third party). This does not serve to invalidate acts of taxation nor mercy of course; however, there is no mercy in this particular social play act – rather only opportunities to claim godship over one’s fellow man.

Therefore the mere biases of suspicion, skepticism, sponsorship, hunch, predilection or conspiracy theory are one thing – but evil is known by one signature and one signature alone – and that is agency – the intent which seeks a position of godship over a lesser being or at-risk stakeholder. To costume this intent in virtue, goodness, morality, justice, science, religious or academic robes or any other urge of the poseur, stands only to compound such evil.

Evil is known by one signature alone – agency –
that intent which seeks godship over a lesser being or at-risk stakeholder.

To costume this intent in virtue, goodness, morality, justice, science,
religious or academic robes serves only to compound its evil.

Yes, an ethical skeptic recognizes the risk inherit in bias – but also understands as well that bias, is not really our preeminent problem. This is why the First Duty of Ethical Skepticism is to oppose agency.

         Bias

Any form of development in epistemology which is conducted under a lack of epoché or skeptical neutrality. Bias is not something that one holds – as everyone possesses this form of ‘bias’. Rather bias is an action which has succumbed to such inclination, whether conscious or unconscious. It is a set of actions, postulates, questions, observations, analyses, portrayals, manipulations, methods or conclusions which are influenced in any way by a premise of non-neutrality concerning a question of inquiry or science.

         Agency

The manipulation of persons, institutions, procedures, risks, ignorance, biases or social message such that they bring to effect a particular surreptitious or manifest outcome. The seeking of godship over lesser, disdained or at-risk stakeholders in the form of power, virtue, moral authority, conflict, positional authority, defamation, control, retribution, sequestration, harm, death, justice, extermination, extraction of wealth, oppression or enslavement.

         Bias versus Agency

Bias will be acknowledged and surrendered by an honest researcher. Agency will not.

Bias can be mitigated and worked around. Agency can not.

Bias does not seek to exploit other bias. Agency does.

Bias does not form a syndicate (cartel, mafia, cabal). Agency does.

Bias does not seek to govern. Agency does.

Bias introduces error. Agency enforces it.

Bias is Tau. Agency is Indigo. (*see here)

Bias counters its potential error by means of skepticism. Agency entrenches its correctness by joining a skeptic club.

Bias can be countered by in-context methodology and researcher discipline. Agency can not.

Bias does not celebrate, exploit nor seek to wallow in ignorance. Agency does.

Bias is identified through knowledge. Agency is identified through intelligence.

Bias will seek to protect its own. Agency will seek to harm those different.

Bias might involve standing up to a bully. Agency is the bully.

Bias does not see the full set of ramifications. Agency sets those as its goal.

Bias does not seek to bolster an institution. Agency does.

Bias comes from inside. Agency comes from the outside.

Bias appeals to a higher authority aside from itself. Agency does so only in furtherance of its goals.

Bias can detect and deliberate an impact upon stakeholders. Agency does not care – or is even worse when it does.

Thus I have outlined as faithfully as I can muster, the threshing tool of the ethical skeptic allowing a distinction between bias and agency. Wise is he or she who understands and can master the difference.

   How to MLA cite this article:

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Distinction Between Bias and Agency”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 4 Jan 2020; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/?p=42966

January 4, 2020 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism, Institutional Mandates | , , | 5 Comments

Unethical Employment of Intellectual Property

Should intellectual property holders be allowed to name their patented product, the same exact name as its natural variant? Can one ethically patent a portion of a public domain item, then force the rest of that public domain item out of business – defacto patenting a formerly natural public domain resource?
Moreover, what if that ‘product’ was a pathogen? If I deploy a novel product in such a fashion, which solely as a result of my deployment of that product, threatens the prospective user with harm if they do not thereafter acquire and further propagate that new product – this is called ‘Racketeering’ under 18 U.S.C. § 1961.

In the mid 20th Century, organized crime shifted from its traditional business bases of gambling, prostitution, booze running, drug smuggling, human and weapons trafficking, to more legitimate and prima facia ethical business avenues. As a result, in 1978, Congress enacted the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO Act as it is called, in order to provide prosecutors with new sets of laws effective at combating these newer forms of quasi-legitimate criminal enterprises.1

In one of my past projects, the company I led had developed a new way to fabricate a medical treatment intervention. This new method of fabrication neutralized several defects incumbent with the old version of the treatment, and made it both a much healthier and now permanent and life-long solution to the entailed human malady, alleviating much suffering for the patients who needed this new medical technology. This intellectual property bore patentability, given that it was novel, useful, non-obvious to a practitioner in the art, had not been fairly addressed before, and was teachable and sustainable as a technology.2 As a result, we issued a barrage of intellectual property protections (both internal and external) per the chart on the right.

Subsequently, we approached several business partners to help us deploy this medical technology for benefit inside medical praxis. What I have outlined here of course is an example of an ethical employment of intellectual property. A condition wherein the technology in question is but one small specialized segment of its market vertical, and as well was actually serving to create a completely new market niche out of non-existence (ex nihilo) – and not necessarily displacing naturally occurring versions of itself into oblivion. In addition, our target user was highly interested in our product because of the novel advantage it afforded them; an advantage which they could not obtain through natural means.

But let us consider for a moment, the hypothetical circumstance wherein our technology provided more than simply those two advantages. What if our technology became so ‘beneficial’, dominant-in-practice, ‘virtuous’ or critically valuable (think ‘selling plywood before a hurricane landfall’), that it served to accomplish several of the perhaps more negative potential ramifications of intellectual property? Let’s outline two hypothetical examples of this species of negative IP condition below – in the forms of racketeering, through predation and extortion. We present the predation form of racketeering first, because it helps shed light into the critical issues involved inside how a market metastasizes under an artificial pathogen threat.

 Racketeering Predation

Intellectual Property Metastasizes Market thru Economy of Scale Exploitation

The intellectual property (IP) technology deployed either enables a better cost-inputs efficiency or enables cartel-enforced economies of scale such that it becomes predatory upon heirloom and naturally occurring species, which are healthier but now cost more to produce. When the market metastasizes, this displacement harms genetic stocks through depletion, human health through lack of nutrition and farming economies through loss of ability to affect margin.

In the example below, the FructatoTM displaces all 5 varietals of naturally occurring sweet potato from bearing market viability. Yes, these varietals can be grown, however they are not supported as a technology by the metastasized market, and now must be grown at a much greater cost, because of the economies of scale now incumbent in FructatoTM production and supply. Few real advantages were realized with the FructatoTM; rather its perception was spun by market entities who were able to propel it into a sufficient critical mass of employment, such that it appeared advantageous versus traditional options. Once all heirloom species are too expensive for farmer to grow, then the cartel using the new tech, starts calling the FructatoTM the ‘sweet potato’. Thereafter the cartel slowly raises prices and squeezes farmers into foreclosure and forfeiture to underwritten industrial farms – as is happening now in America.

This is predatory market activity – much like a mega Pet-Mart putting an entire nation of mom and pop pet stores out of business through predatory dog food pricing – employing smart Wall Street money backing to bolster the company during the predatory-loss phase, and then raising prices once all the competition has been eliminated – this is illegal trust activity.

 Racketeering Extortion

Artificial Pathogen Metastasizes Market thru Ironically Its Own Artificial Threat

A treatment (Vapox TM) for the naturally occurring illness Poxolitis, once installed in the human body, causes others around that person being treated, to reside under a threat of developing a similar but artificially induced ailment to the pathogen (Poxolitis) the treatment was designed to counter in the first place. Thereby mandating that family members, classmates and office workers exposed to the person receiving the intellectual property treatment, now are compelled/coerced into having to obtain that same IP from its supplier – because they have inherited an artificial disease exposure risk from the person receiving the VapoxTM treatment for that disease in the first place.

These stakeholders are denied their human right to their own pedigree natural immunity asset which results from Poxolits, and must purchase the intellectual property (IP) version immunity (a predatory product called VapoxTM) in its place. However, this is all enacted under an implicit threat created by the profit-making IP holder, solely because of the artificial variant of the pathogen they have broadcast into the market in the first place.

The key unethical practice here, involves conflating in the industry praxis, both the natural immunity and artificial product symptomatology as constituting the same illness (regardless of how mild) – diagnosed by means of the same medical identifier. Once this has been done, racketeering fraud comes into play.

Do such conditions exist today? In the case of predation, absolutely this exists. In the case of extortion, we actually do not possess enough information to know whether or not that racketeering condition exists. However, one must be reminded that wilful ignorance or Nelsonian obfuscation of information surrounding 18 U.S.C. § 1961 – U.S. Code Racketeering, also constitutes racketeering in itself (Section 35). It is our duty as a society and a medical industry, to find out. The way we find out, is to name and track such natural and artificial maladies by means of separate and non-ambiguous identifiers – mandatory in each instance of outbreak/use. Such litmus conditions serve to place an ethical cap on the ceiling, limiting the rights and conditions claimable by an intellectual property holder. To broach either of the litmus conditions, serves to constitute a legal threshold under the 1978 RICO Act.

The critical essence of this set of ethics involves the naming and market identity conventions employed regarding novel intellectual property.

To mix the identity of naturally occurring and artificial IP variants, constitutes unethical activity.
If the measles vaccine itself can cause measles, then this derivative intellectual property disease must bear a different name entirely and cannot be registered as a ‘measles outbreak’.

Pathoteering – Racketeering by Means of Artificial Pathogen Threat

What these two hypothetical cases of racketeering serve to elucidate is the principle of racketeering by threat of artificial pathogen. My obfuscation of identity between my novel intellectual property pathogen and the naturally occurring variant may constitute Racketeering on my part, if my novel technology, of its own accord, serves to threaten its prospective users or coerce them into compliance with its deployment. The issue therefore hinges on whether or not the threat which makes the purchase or acquisition of product or illegitimate establishment of market power, involves

      An intellectual property device or element of market power which

           1.  has established user or at-risk stakeholder compulsion into its market prevalence or use,

           2.  is not naturally occurring or is a derivative of a naturally occurring element,

           3.  has displaced a plurality or more of the naturally occurring market, through

                a.  illegal forms market predation,
                b.  a threat or implicit threat of harm to candidate adopters, and/or
                c.  requiring its efficacy, safety or confirmation of safety, be confirmed through its adoption by that using community, and

           4.  is ambiguously referred to by the same name as the naturally occurring variant. 

If all four exist, then this establishes the basis for 18 U.S.C. Racketeering.

What we have served to broach here is the critical role of product identity, in the conflation of ethical burdens on the part of companies inside the separate contexts of naturally occurring and synthesized threats. The ethical standards under each circumstance are different. The exercise of enforced medicinals under threat of a naturally occurring pathogen can be ethical. However, once the threat is principally created by a modified/artificial/fabricated agent, then enforcement of that synthesized/derived agent itself, as the solution to a problem which it created in the first place, especially under the auspices of monopoly profit, constitutes 18 U.S.C. § 1961 – U.S. Code Racketeering. Related excerpts from that United States Code follow.

18 U.S.C. § 1961 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 19613

Section 1951 (Extortion): Interference with commerce by threats or violence

Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose…

The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Sections 175 – 178 (Biological Harm) : biological weapons

175 (b) Additional Offense.—Whoever knowingly possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purpose… In this subsection, the terms “biological agent” and “toxin” do not encompass any biological agent or toxin that is in its naturally occurring environment, if the biological agent or toxin has not been cultivated, collected, or otherwise extracted from its natural source.

(1) – (4) any “biological agent”, “toxin”, “delivery system”, or “vector” which causes “death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;”

A legislative reality exists in which I am prohibited from litigating the IP-racketeering entity and seeking award damages as a result of their causing my child’s encephalitis or death. I was unable to pursue any recourse on behalf of my child, because the permanent disability encephalitic injury for my son was not able to be confirmed as a diagnosis until he was old enough to be tested for such damage – well past the 3 years of age limitation specified in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The irony is that he cannot get disability either. He is destined to live a life of poverty, working menials jobs – solely because of the malice, oppression and criminal racketeering activity of the part of the pharmaceutical industry. I will work hard to help alleviate inevitable poverty which my child will have to undergo at the hands of these incompetent elites. But I will be damned if I will be silent about it.

But at-risk families like mine can use racketeering and anti-trust laws to protect their loved ones from harm/coercion into being forced to ingest a possibly harm-potent intellectual property product – even if the entailed racketeering is enacted by society at large – and more importantly, even if we are unsure as to the existence of the four conditions above.

In other words, once a vaccine is no longer reasonably justified as a ‘prophylactic or protective’ agent against a naturally occurring microbe – and is now only protecting its coerced/threatened victims against harm imparted by its intellectual-property-derived imitation/variant – and this is clouded by the coercing entities’ or market’s or society’s conflation of the same name in common between the naturally occurring and genetic/modified/derived variant – then compulsory vaccination under this condition has become an act of Racketeering, under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 – U.S. Code.

I cannot seek damages for my child’s injury or death, nor for pharmaceutical company Racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 – U.S. Code, precisely because of the NCVIA of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) legislation, however

I can seek a protective injunction against Racketeering which employs coercion to enforce use of a product under a threat of implicit harm which meets the above four criteria.

The basic premise resides in this, if the disease against which I am now being vaccinated is, even in a remote possibility and even if we do not know, principally a disease which was invented by the actions of any coercing entity to begin with, and I am not aware of this because the same name is used for both the natural and artificial variants of the pathogen – I do not have to comply to such legal action, by law. I also may seek an injunction of such coercive activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 – U.S. Code.

I am testing this as my legal delineation between justified vaccination, and unethical vaccination which induces more harm than good. The ‘risk/benefit’ analysis which everyone keeps talking about, yet nobody actually does. I am pro-vaccine, but there is a viable limitation to such virtue, just as there is a context limit to all virtues. We as a society need to face and fathom these ethical boundaries.

Such is also the duty of an ethical skeptic.

   How to MLA cite this article:

The Ethical Skeptic, “Unethical Employment of Intellectual Property”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 27 Dec 2019; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/?p=42337

December 27, 2019 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Institutional Mandates | , | Leave a comment

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: