John Hamaker's 1985 comments on (then) current climate and tectonic research news       Go back to the colourful version            Having used lots of light colourtones in the text fo that file I decided (februari 2001) you might like this here small (black) font printerfriendly version (and that means no <p>'s what soever. Just some spaces to denote alineas and such.     In other words; my device is: get the paper formated as densely info-packed (uniformly grey to denote optimally efficient use of (caring n carrying) capacity) as possible.     If you go ahead and print this please do so double sided  (remember to print half of it at a time, return the paper to the printer in turned over position and print the second half...).                  1985 Hamaker reviews of those Quarternary research (concerning tectonics and climate) articles appearing in Science, science news and Scientific American. They were featured in the Ice Age or Solar Bulletin (edited, produced and distributed by the co-author of his book: 'The Survival of Civilization', a young ex basketball player, now raw food fanatic: Don Weaver)                 Go see what else poetpiet can puzzle you with here            ............or here..............            or check the intro to this, my first batch of guest appearances which concerns all sorts of currency issues              The contents here:  Januari comments featuring:Clarification; John's serious misgivings about the burgeoning variety, and, as he sees it: lack of discipline, in the Hamaker Co-ordination ranks; plus the then latest on CO2 and 'kooky' theories like pole shifts.          comments on religious  and economic matters and finally:   comments on the lead article in the Jan. 12, 1985 issue of Science News headlined: "Hot Springs, Warm Climate and CO2." by Robert M. Owen and David K. Rae of the University of Michigan        Februari comments featuring: John Gribbin and Stephen Schneider (climatologists whom John suspected of being sort of a fossil fuel industry lobby), Idso (more into what John calls: group genius.)         May comments featuring: Charles P Kelly and Wilhelm Reich, Ralph Borsodi (co-ordinator of the once famous School for living, the low tec branch of the formerly more holistically oriented 'whole earth', now 'Well' crowd), Don'Workheiser (a contributor there but less a back to the landish than reclusive scholar kind of guy, I believe), Tom Greco (meanwhile authored: "new money for healthy communities" see linklist) Eustace Mullins and Albert Jay Nock           June featuring: comment on the May 11, 1985 Science News, p. 294, article called: "Ocean Drilling, including John's light shining on the Bermuda Triangle and comment on an article  called: "Earth's 'Pulses' Tied to Plate Rates" including comments on the 'kooky' pole shift theories                Clarification of Hamaker Position   I have seen many well-intentioned movements initiated and I have seen them disappear. The primary reason is internal dissension. When that dissension is publicly aired, the public can not be blamed for losing interest in a group who can not agree among themselves. The Hamaker-Weaver survival effort is endangered by its advocates. I intend to stop the external sering of dissenting opinion if I possibly can. The place for dissent is my address. If error can be shown, a correction will appear in the Solar Age or Ice Age Bulletin. Survival depends on truth -- not error.         Individuals and organizations not directly connected with Hamaker-Weaver can make any criticism of the The Survival of Civilization (TSOC) thesis they wish to make. Hamaker-Weaver's only recourse is to refute their argument and give the refutation as much publicity as possible.           What particularly concerns me is the "Hamaker Coordination" network. These people have been doing an excellent job. However they can defeat their own objectives by speaking or writing publicly in a manner critical of some aspect of the TSOC thesis.         There are two primary objectives expressed in TSOC. One is the- necessity of reestablishing an environment acceptable to nature. The second, more important than the first, is tne necessity of establishing a workable economy resulting in a peaceful social order. The first requirement is widely understood; the second is widely misunderstood.      I recently received a letter stating that information on the cost of remineralizing all over the world was needed in order to initiate action. That question disturbs me because it shows a very common underestimation of the crises we face. To whom would we submit the bill? If we are serious about survival, from 1/2 to 2/3 of existing industries must be abandoned. No more fossil fuels, no more synthetic organic chemicals -- we must have automobiles run by alcohol-fired steam engines, new automobiles limited to one per 10 years (steam engines don't wear out) -- no luxury goods -- we must pare the use of energy to the bone -- food, clothing, shelter plus the new industries based on bio-energy. We must cut out things we don't need in order to get the things we do need. Soil remineralization is an absolute necessity for survival. A figure on the cost is meaningless. The present economie structures will collapse. What we must have is a united resolve by people and their governments to undertake the maximum effort of which they are capable. Then and only then will we have any chance of survival if indeed it is not already too late for a total effort to succeed.     Einstein said the bomb changed everything but the way we think. I see it in the mail I get. People still orient to the way things are. The change in the climate makes the seeming permanence of the way things are a transitory illusion. If we do not re-orient our thinking, it's a toss-up whether one dies of starvation or nuclear war or both. The necessity for economic change as expressed in Chapter 7 of TSOC is a nonnegotiable requirement for survival. Jesus of Nazareth first stated the fact that there could be no peace in the world as long as "the rich get richer and the poor get pover, " as his key verse is paraphrased. He pointed to the three ways of getting something for nothing by the use of money: the exorbitant "take" by "owners" of the profit system (parable of the Talents); the speculative value in land, and the unearned value in inheritance (Parable of the Unfaithful Tenant Farmers). In the Excoriation of the Scribes and Pharisees (writers and lawyers) he tells them that they pay their tithe, as they should, but he asks "What about the weightier matters of law and justice?" "Certain rich Jews perceived what he was up to and conspired to have him killed. " Subsequently rich Romans conspired to kill the followers of Jesus and the Christian message has not been heard since.     Recently, a courageous Pope has led the Catholic hierarchy in a campaign for social justice. As far as I know, they have not spelled out any details, apparently leaving that to the world's politica! leaders. They are insisting that we get at the cause of the poverty which breeds wars. We are under threat of death from nuclear war and starvation. It's high time that churches calling themselves Christian set about changing the fact that "the rich get richer and the poor get pover. "        Contrast the Catholic position with that of the Lutheran hierarchy which has one of its preachers in jail because he refused to leave his congregation. His sin? He took the position that there is something wrong about corporations picking up their marbles and leaving town, thus depriving 100, 000 Pittsburgh families of their means of support. Money obviously speaks louder than justice in most "Christian" churches.       I have not attended church since I was 13 or 14 years old. I have no use for beliefs of any kind. They are just as much a mental block to problem solution as erroneous scientific perceptions. That does not keep me from being interested in every facet of life which bears on our survival. The effort which the Pope is reading is vitally important to our survival.        When I praised the Catholic church position on social justice in a previous paper, I received some criticism for giving the appearance of favoring one sect over another. That is nonsense. I would praise the devil if he were to have a change of heart and call for social justice. He would be a great ally because he has a huge following.     A Hamaker coordinator has sent out literature on which the statement was made that that unit of Hamaker Coordination was not interested in political or economic concerns. I take strong exception to such a statement. When a Hamaker coordinator takes a position opposite to Hamaker's position, lt implies Hamaker's assent. No part of Hamaker's position as stated in TSOC is separable from the rest.           The correct procedure for Hamaker coordinators who, for any reason, do not wish to get involved with some aspect of the TSOC thesis, iB to simply refer any correspondence of that nature to Hamaker or Weaver. If that is not acceptable, the answer is simple. Stop using the name Hamaker.   One coordinator put a TSOC review in a newspaper and added the opinion that the CO2 comes from the sun since volcanos do not put out enough CO2 to account for all the carbon in the carbon cycle.          Volcanos put out CO2 and other gases and everybody knows it. The term volcanism is used l~ke the term CO2. The former indicates all tectonic activities which release CO2 and other gases," and the latter indicates all "greenhouse effect" gases. The gases emitted from thë tectonic system exist as liquified gas mixed into the molten rock under the crust. Wherever the molten rock rises high enough in the crust to reduce the pressure to less than the pressure of liquifaction, the liquid turns to gas and escapes. One would be making a wild guess if he bied to get a quantitative figure on CO2 released from the entire tectonic system. Suffice it to say the total molten rock released from the ocean floor, and hence the CO2 it contains, is very much greater than the release from volcanos.     So what the newspaper article contained was the TSOC argument contaminated by a bit of science fiction. The uninformed reader could only conclude that the TSOC folks are just playing guessing games.   More recently I have been advised by others that a coordinator has been propagating the idee that glaciation will not occur because the Shackleton curve proves that CO2 must be low in order to have glaciation. Other "kooky" ideas are being circulated, thus chipping away at TSOC credibility. So let's review what TSOC and the bulletins have already explained.    Climate, like everything else on earth, is constantly changing. It is either warming or cooling. The amount of solar energy absorbed by the earth is the determinant of climate. Two things are the principal factors: the size of the snow and ice fjelds, and the amount of cloud cover. These two reflect back into space up to 80 and 90% of the solar energy they receive. Deserts reflect up to about 30%. As the areas affected by these factors get larger, the earth gets colder. Anything which increases any one of these factors contributes toward cooling. "The" big contributory factor is CO2 from fossil fuels which our rulers insist on imposing on the world, which they have done and will continue to do as long as the world accepts this imposition.   Anybody who has been alive in the last thirty days and experienced the deep snows and bitter cola in the northern hemisphere should know that the rapidly increasing greenhouse effect gases are producing rapidly increasing cloud masses, which are producing rapidly increasing quantities of bitterly cold air. Besides killing people, winter crops on both sides of the Mediterranean, in Florida and South Texas have been damaged or killed.        Some people seem to have gotten the idee from TSOC that they are going to die because the glaciers will run over their igloo in the temperate zone. That's nonsense. The glaciers will not invade the middle latitudes for 30, 000 to 40, 000 years. We are going to die because the winter cola is destroying winter crops and the summer droughts, freezes, etc. are destroying summer crops. That in addition to the fact that demineralized soils are becoming less and less able to support life -- and the population continues to expand.         Returning to the silly conclusion drawn by one of the coordinators from the Shackleton curve. High carbon dioxide is not what causes glaciation. All that is necessary for glaciation is that there be a sufficient temperature differential to cause the winds to flow in a pronounced sinusoidal curve so that most of the clouds are carried to the upper latitudes to fall as snow. There is always enough CO2 in the air to cause evaporation of sufficient water to maintain glaciation. A big ice field can cause enough air circulation due to temperature differential to tering the clouds to the upper latitudes. Thus when that size field is established, glaciation will run its 90, 000 year course regardless of how CO2 varies. The importance of CO2 at this time is that it is causing so much cloud cover and so much increase in temperature differential (cue to greenhouse effect heating at the equatorial region) that the massive cloud cover is causing earth cooling and rapid growth in ice fjelds. If there were no information at all on the growth of upper latitude ice fjelds we would still know that they are increasing because volcanism is increasing. The increase is caused by the increasing weight to the ice fjelds forcing the "gunk" back into the active parts of the tectonic system. That process tends to perpetuate itself because more activity in the tectonic system releases more CO2 into the atmosphere which increases cloud cover which increases ice fields which increases tectonic activity. If this self-perpetuating process gets so welf established that the best effort we can make to lower CO2 fails to stop the process, we will be beyond the point of no return. That is why we must move as quickly as possible to get the CO2 out of the air.          Why is CO2 low in the atmosphere at the height of glaciation? It is impossible to think of one living organism on this earth whose population is not limited by its food supply. Man should be an exception to the rule. If there is any significant difference between man and the other forms of life, it would be in man's ability to control himself. So far there is no evidence of such a difference. So far he has simply established the fact that he is a better predator than the other organisms. He is breeding himself into starvation.             At the height of glaciation just about every river and stream plus the wind is pouring ground glacial gravel dust into the world's coastal waters. At the same time huge amounts of CO2 are entering the atmosphere from the tectonic system. One study of ocean floor core samples concluded that volcanism was about 4 times as high during glaciation as during interglacials. If volcanism goes up it means that the whole tectonic system activity is up and hence CO2 release is up. However gravel dust (the naturel mix of minerale) and carbon are the two critically limiting food factors for microorganisms at the base of all life on the land and in the sea. The result of high dust and CO2 is the sort of abundance of life in the ocean we have seen at both poles but spread over all the coastal waters of the world.            The Shackleton curve shows how much CO2 is in the atmosphere -- not how much goes into it. The fact that the curve indicates decreasing CO2 with the growth in glaciation (end increasing mineralization) is simply verification of the fact that living organisme are quite capable of multiplying to the limit of their food supply. The low CO2 indicates that carbon is the limiting factor -- not minerals.             Any glacial advance or surge depends on the mix of factors. At the start of glaciation when the ice fields are relatively small, an upward surge in CO2 can supply (is now supplying) the cloud reflectivity which with the other factors will throw the earth into a cooling phase. If the ice field grows sufficiently to maintain cooling in spite of low CO2, the latter becomes relatively unimportant. The increased temperature differential due to the size of ice field insures that while less cloud cover is produced by low CO2, virtually all of the evaporated water goes to the glaciated area to fall as snow and the ice field continues to grow. During the last glaciation according to Shackleton's curve the CO2 varied from 290 ppm at the start of glaciation (a maximum of about 340 in the initial surge of CO2) to about 250 ppm at the end. That's a small percantage variation as far as cloud making is concerned but a big variation for the sea life since the lower ffgure causes a die-back. But any variation of CO2 charges the mix and has an effect on the rate of growth of the ice fields.             A coordinator has said that, aiter reading a Scientific American article (9/83, p. 67) which said that convection currents in the magma were responsible for operating the tectonic system, he has concluded that Hamaker is wrong about the system being operated by nuclear reactors. This drivel in Scientific American has been in Science and Science News for some time. There is not a single geological feature which could be caused by convection currents. This nonsense comes from the same crowd which for 24 years has been unable to tell the world how the climate system works. They still think that mountains are wrinkled up by a collision between ocean floor and continent.         The explanations offered by the establishment scientists are in complete disrepute with other scientists. A perceptive article by Christopher Bird, co-author of The Secret Life of Plants, in the January 1985 issue of Acres, U.S.A. reports on a recent meeting in Toronto of the International Council of Scientific Unions. The Council is an affiliation of 71 National Academies of Science. They voted unanimously endorsing a resolution calling for a worldwide project to study the powerful interaction of our earth's physical, chemical and biological processes. " That's a unanimous vote of "no confidence" in the hypotheses offered by establishment scientists thus far. Yet a coordinator would have people believe that the TSOC explanation of the tectonic system is wrong on the basis of what can only be described as "science fiction".             A hypothesis which does not explain the geological features of the earth is falset How can convection currents in the magma explain the veins of ore such as gold and silver in the mountains? Those veins of nearly pure elements travel "x" miles through cracks in the mountain above to fill them with the ore. How is this physically possible ? Convection currents move so slowly that the veins of hot ore would freeze in "x" inches of movement into cola rock. The only physical explanation is found in die casting of various materials. Two things are required to "run" the mold: high temperature melt carrying excess heat to prevent premature freezing, and an instant application of very high pressure. Tungsten melts above 6,000 degrees F., about three times the average magma temperature. The ores are hot! When we are thiking about an instant pressure surge to drive the ore through "x" miles of cracks in cola rock, we are talking about an extremely high instantaneous pressure surge. That means an explosion. An explosive release of energy on such a massive scale exists on this earth only when nuclear energy is released from radioactive materials. The fact that nearly pure ores exist means a process of separation of the elements -- a gravity separation -- exists. When sufficient radioactive material comes together to form a critical mess, the resulting explosion provides the necessary temperature and pressure to brast the ores into the mountains. Convection currents in the magma can do all this? That's just silly because it has rothing to do with reality.        on 'kooky' pole shift and jump theories    There's another kooky idee which has been around for 30 or 40 years. It is proposed that ice build-up at the poles can throw the world out of balance and centrifugal force will turn the polar axis 90 degrees so that it lies in the plane of the equator. Just two potential explanations: The whole earth turns -- impossible, because the earth is about 24 miles greater in diameter at the equator than at the poles. A few thousand feet of ice can't begin to exert more cantrifugal force than a dozen miles of rock. The second is that the crust slides over the mantle on the gunk so the poles wind up at the equator and the temperate zones wind up at the upper latitudes - thus an "ice age". Also impossible.        The heaters operate at very high temperatures. This means that the low melting point materials are very fluid and quickly breed out of the surrounding gunk under the mende, leaving a very thick wall of high melting point materials as a furnace wall running from the bottom of the in-coming ocean floor to as much as 300 or 400 miles down into the mantle. Between the ultra-high temperature of explosion and the and of the settling period the temperature probably normalizes at just above 6, 000 or 7, 000 degrees F. During the temperature drop there would be a cooling contraction to cause a closing in of the furnace walls to renew the material melted off them and thus maintaining the walls while supplying a new charge of radioactive fuel.      What we see is 'tXt' hundreds of massive, malleable "roots" connecting the crust with the mantle. They can yield to very slow movements and adept, but the sudden shift described itl the theory would teer every "root" apart and the ocean would pour into every heater in the world, producing the catastrophic event to and all such events. Furthermore, the inland seas have been rising out of the ocean for "x" millions of years. Glaciation occurs every 100, 000 years. The idee that a sudden flip-flop of the poles causes glaciation is just another tale that can't stand the tests presented by the "real world".         A recent review states, "His idealistic -- perhaps unrealistic -- economic solutions, which involve changing and simplifying government operations to obtain economic freedom, seem overly optimistic in adressing the good will -- as opposed to the greed -- of world leaders and corporale institutions." Since most people apparently agree with this totally erroneous perception, I'll attempt to clarify my position.        Idealistic? For several decades I have been willing to go for economie justice at the expense of "reed. For an equally long time I have been aware that I held a decidedly minority view -- but is it idealistic? I have seen that the establishment of justice means a far better life for all of us. I want that for me, my family, and everybody else. As Will Rogers said, "I never met a man I didn't like." Ever since the depression of the thirties I've preferred to see people "getting along" to seeing them sleeping on the streets.         One might argue that it is unrealistic and it would be except for the fact that we all face death if we don't go for justice. In the long run, justice is practical -- it works. It is therefore realistic. If history teaches anything at all, it teaches that all nations in which the wealth passes into the hands of a few wind up with a revolution. As often as not other predatory nations, seeing a chance to make the area safe for exploitation, join in the war. We have had two wars in this cantury which involved most of the world's people. Most people think there will be another and that it will be fought with nuclear weapons if the world stays as it is. Is it unrealistic to attempt to remove the primary underlying cause of this threat to our existence?It would be unrealistic to think that "good will" would overcome greed in world leaders. I have never thought that. What I do think is that the fear of death outranks greed in the "pecking order" of human emotions.      The communication of the fact of impending death is the real problem. In almost three years we have had no help from the major news media which no longer is a free press but a servant of "them that have. "Those who control this nation are in the act of committing suicide. They do not yet understand what they are doing. They, like most of the rest of us, have not taken Einstein's advice to change the way we think. Instead we turn to old perceptions: 'It just can't be true that our lives are ending in just a few years." "Things don't happen that fast." Such rationalizations are based on the seeming permanence of nature as we have known her in the past rather than on present facts. But nature is speaking with an authority which has now been heard above the din of establishment propaganda. The Council of Scientific Unions has finally got the message. Sir John Kendrew, President of the Council told the press: '1t's really taking a look at what happens to the future of the human race on this planet. " That's a realistic attitude. Now if the Council can come to a conclusion in about the same time it took Buckminster Fuller (a couple of weeks at most) then perhaps the Council can put the fear of death above greed and we can all get busy doing what we must do for the slim chance of survival which still remains at this late date.            I hope I have clarified my position on a lot of things. I want nothing to do with science fiction -- kooky ideas that don't square with the facts. I recognize that everything is connected with everything else and therefore if religion or politics or economics or anything else bears on our chances of survival, I am interested in that subject and will comment on it. So I repeat my objection to anyone in the Hamaker Coordination network using my name in a public criticism of any part of the TSOC position. As I said in the Preface to TSOC, I don't write these papers to please anyone - only to inform. Anything I have written is subject to change but only on a factual basis. I have no interest in anyone's beliefs.          The lead article in the Jan. 12, 1985 issue of Science News is headlined "Hot Springs, Warm Climate and CO2. "      Robert M. Owen and David K. Rae of the University of Michigan have concluded from the evidence they have gathered that unusual hydrothermal activity along the ocean ridges released enough CO2 50 million years ego to cause a warming of the earth.            Hydrothermal activity is normal to tectonic activities. The ocean ridges show that the maximum pressure and flow is at the height of glaciation -- therefore it is the time of maximum hydrothermal activity. Hydrothermal activity is part of the CO2 supplied during glaciation -- not warming. Owen and Rae are straining imagination in scarch of an explanation for high CO2 and CaCO3 deposition in the Eocane epoch (58 to 36 million years ago) of the Canozoic era (the last 65 million years). They need only look at a topographical map of the west coast of the Americas to see the remains of the broken mid-Pacific ridge strewn along the coast of both Americas to find the source of high CO2 and mineral emission.      Since the break-up of the ridge is described in TSOC and the bulletins I will here only add a few thoughts.          The manner of break-up of a ridge nceds to be described. It took about 65 to about 10 million years ago to complete the wreckage. The break-up is slow because the flow from an open hole in the ridge is much faster than new molten rock can be fed to the hole. The reason is that as the velocity of flow increases, the friction of flow increases, both in the river of melt under the ridge and in the one or more vertical feeders which connect with the horizontal flow from the heater and/or other parts of the system. So the explosions which occur when cola ocean water mixes with molten rock continue for only a short distance until the rate of outilow is week enough to be frozen by the cola water. The "scab" is thin and when the pressure rises in that area, it does not take much to break it open again -: perhaps hydraulic shock from another location on the ridge or any ocean floor movement or stress from other ridge actions. The breakdown occurs as the result of innumerable explosive events in the slow way that things in the tectonic system work. Explosions close to a vertical feeder would be much more violent episodes than those remote from a feeder. The explosions in the continental heaters which replaced the mountains between the Sierra Nevadas aDd the Sierra Madres with the Gulf of California lasted from 32 to 10 million years ago. That's a remarkably welf controlled series of explosions considering that the melt was pressured to one side of the zone of explosion. In spite of the control, the magnitude of the explosions was such as to cause many species extinctions.  Remembering the brast and weather alterations resulting from the 1813 explosion of Tambora, the volcaDic mountain in Java, it is not hard to extrapolate what would happen when a mid-ocean ridge starts exploding and probably doing it simultaneously at various points in its approximately 10.000 mile length.       The possible climate changes which can occur in such catastrophic events are:1. So much CO2 is released so quickly that the world plunges quickly into glaciation.     2. So much CO2 can accumulate in the atmosphere that the clouds moving to the upper latitudes carry so much heat that they fall as rein, washing the ice fjelds away and producing tropical conditions in Canada.     3. So much rock dust is shot up into the stratosphere, blocking so much sunlight that the world is plunged into glaciation and photosynthesis is stopped over vast areas of the earth, turning them into deserts. The things which can produce species extinctions are: 1. Shock wave effect which probably extends with lethal consequences for several hundreds of miles. The Siberian Mammoths who died quickly with full stomachs and were suddenly frozen and preserved probably were brast victims of a major explosive event in the Arctic ocean, the evidence of which is now buried under ice. The explosion could have caused a mini-glaciation which trapped other Mammoths in deep snows. Still others were found around a Nebraska water hole with a variety of other animale all of which gathered there when their grassland food supply died. Presumably dust stopped the photosynthesis long enough for a massive die out. These things happened just 10.000 years ago and are suggestive of the fact that during the break-up of the mid-Pacific ridge a variety of factors worked to cause extinctions. The deaths of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago probably were for the same reasons that the Mammoths became extinct.          2. Because the lethal effect of sudden weather violence there is one other effect that can be expected when catastrophic events involved continental heaters. These explosions go so deep that the radioactive mantle gets involved. The outfall from the explosions in the Gulf of California from iridium to uranium indicates a wide swath of lethal radiation was leid down across the present United States. How can something of such obvious significance as the visible wreckage of a mid-ocean ridge be to tally ignored by the large number of geologists and oceanographers who have been investigating the physical world? The correct answer, I think, is that Science News, like the major news media, is "managed" by the establishment. So now the people of Europe and the U.S. are experiencing wind chill temperatures as low as minus 80 degrees F. Suicide must have some appeal to our rulers which I fail to perceive. We are all very fortunate to have had the help given to the TSOC survival effort by two remarkable people. Between them they totaled over 175 years of learning experience in this world and they learned well. With established reputations for clear thinking both gave unqualified support to the TSOC thesis. Buckminster Fuller, known worldwide, holder of many University honorary degrees, inventor of the geodesie dome, worldwide lecturer, inventor, architect -- all these accomplishments because early in life he started out in a scarch for truths which might aid mankind in avoiding developing crisis. It is not surprising, therefore, that he was quick to give an unqualified endorsement to a book which is itself the result of a scarch for truth. His endorsement of TSOC has given a very helpful credibility to the book.               Hamaker Rebuttal to Gribbin "review"  The above alleged book review has been sent to me for comment.(Sorry, I couldn't scan it due to quality and magazines like Nature and Scientific American wouldn't take to kindly to me pinching their stuff anyway, but I'll ad the ref later) I say alleged because Einstein could not have read this stuff and gained the slightest perception of what TSOC is about. There are five paragraphs devoted to Gribbin's theme, which boils down to a recommendation that everybody should shut up and submit what they have to say to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and let them take the final explanation of the climate system to Congress. (Apparently his recommendation does not apply to trim. ) NAS has had about 25 years to do this. So far when they go to Congress it is to say they don't know and they need more money. A copy of TSOC went to NASA early in 1982 and was willfully ignored. Is Gribbin naive or a total fool?   Neither, I suspect.     There's one paragraph on Idso's book which Gribbin finds acceptable except that Idso was a bad boy for taking his criticism of the warming theory directly to the public. Having reed Idso's book, it is apparent that he found the NAS had closed the door to anyone critical of the warming theory.      The last line is cute: ". .. this guy Hamaker, without any formal qualifications, has spotted something none of them has noticed. " I doubt if the folks at Purdue University would consider a BSME as no qualification for study of the climate system. If NAS had had just one good mechanica! engineer studying the climate system, they could at least have discarded a lot of mental junk that the other disciplines have been carrying around for decades. I regres to say that when I asked people at Purdue to evaluate TSOC, the silence was deafening. It's a sad thing to see academie freedom going the way of freedom of the prees.    In the paragraph on TSOC Gribbin says the authors show little understanding of the Milankovitch mechanism. All that says is that Gribbin has not bothered to reed the Solar Age or Ice Age ? bulletins in which the TSOC thesis is updated and expanded. I wonder if Gribbin knows where the Milankovitch mechanism was vacationing during millions of years when there was no glaciation. He asks why TSOC does not explain why the concantration of CO2 was less during the most recant glaciation. Presumably he is referring to the CO2 level initiating glaciation. The question is not specific but I assume he refers to the fact that the average interglacial level of CO2 exceeds the average glacial level of CO2. The information needed to answer that question is all in TSOC. In the presence of adequate minerale, living organisme control the atmospheric CO2. The balance of nature is controlled by the limit of food supply. Organisms will continue to breed up to the limit of food supply. The limiting factor may be either the scarcity of minerale or the depletion of CO2. The supply of minerale left on the land by glaciation is almost entirely in nonavailable form, while those supplied to the life in the sea are almost entirely in available form and increase as glaciation increases. The supply of land minerale is budgeted over 10.000+ years by the ability of the veil microorganisms to extract the minerale and the slow rate of cycling the fixed supply of minerale by physical forces. The supply of minerale to land organisme decreases throughout the 10, 000 year period. With that simple set of facts one would think that a popular science writer could understand that the average control level of CO2 could not possibly come out the same for both glaciation and interglacial as the predominnace of life shifts from one set of conditions to another.                 Gribbin says TSOC contains "other scientific howlers." He doesn't elucidate. The argument is "specious", he just can't explain why. Finally Gribbin opines that "food and agriculture... are not crucially dependent on the way the climate might change...." The world now has millions of farmers (exclusive of those in Africa) who would get a good laugh out of that "blooper."   Gribbin concludes with: "Not all journaliste are as understanding and friendly as I am!" Well, he may know one who is less friendly, but I would feel safer with a copperhead snake hissing at me.             A much more interesting question is that of- why Stephen Schneider, editor of Climatic Change, would put in what purports to be a scientific journal, such an inaccurate, unscientific, transparant piece of anti-TSOC propaganda. (It is not only anti-TSOC, but anti- any scientist who would dare to speak out against the financial community's science "con" game being run for them by this Administration. )                 Stephen Schneider's boss is the U.S. government. The government, through its DOE (Department of Energy) is now planning an expensive pipeline from Wyoming to the west coast (Chicago Tribune, 5/19/85, p. 1 & 6). The discovery of huge supplies of CO2 in gas wells in Wyoming makes it possible to carry powdered coal from the region to a shipping point on the west coast in a slurry of liquified CO2. At the and of the fine the CO2 is to be warmed to release it into the air from the coal dust before shipping to Japan. They also plan to use the liqulfied CO2 for conveying other materials and for expelling oil from low pressure oil fields. Exxon is already building a gas separation plant and other facilities in Wyoming at an initial cost of over two billion dollars. That means that the whole thing has been "on the drawing board" for several years.    So we get a clear picture of the establishment determined to buil ahead with fossil fuels and now CO2 regardless of what climate change takes placet On what possible rationale are they proceeding? Quite possibly they are as ignorant of the fragile relationship of crops and climate change as Gribbin. If so they might think that by putting enough CO2 in the atmosphere they can melt the now-growing ice fjelds back to a comfortable level and prevent glaciation. If we were all robots who didn't have to eet that would be possible as long as the supply of carbon holds out. After that glaciation would return.   Whatever the reason for the establishment's decision to let the CO2 curve shoot on up in the general direction of infinity, the order has obviously gone out to the propaganda agencies to discourage opposition to all but the "warming. " Since the growing opposition of honest and intelligent people, among them some scientists, is cantered around the TSOC thesis it becomes the book about which Gribbin says: "Nobody with any competence in the field would look at it twice;..."    Hamaker-Weaver could use a few more such sloppy and venomous reviews. I think it has increased our rate of book sales with scientists who "have had ft" with the establishment's high-handed control of the climate study. Intelligent people will not trede their lives for the largesse dispensed by the establishment.     _____          Comments by Stephen Schneider from his editorial in this issue of Climatic Change, which he titled, " 'Natural Experiments' and CO2-Induced Climate Change: The Controversy Drags On":         "Moreover, just to show how extreme the CO2 debate can become in some popular writings, I asked John Gribbin -- who is hardly a defender of the 'CO2 establishment' -- to review a book entitled The Survival of Civilization by John Hamaker, also published by its author at some personal expense. This book is as extreme and opposite to Idso's view as one can come, since Hamaker and colleagues see great global catastrophe associated with CO2 buildup. Gribbin does a fine job, I believe, in putting some perspective on this radical view, asking for 'a little restraint' by people dealing with the CO2 problem so as not to 'sensationalize the issues'. All of us, perhaps, need some measured close of that advice. " . . .        '1n summary, I a~n pleased that this issue of Climatic Change has assembled such a diverse set of arguments on the CO2 question. ... As editor of Climatic Change, I readily coofess to a prior conflict of interestin judging the relative merit of Idso's arguments. If this were a court of law, I would be disqualified frorn overseeing the debate. But in science, motive is -- or at least should be, largely irrelevant; only issues and arguments of a substantive nature are in order. Thus, I arn happy to include in this issue many diverse pieces on the CO2 controversy for the readership of Climatic Change. At the same tlme, I invite supportive or counter arguments, and would trope to publish many such views -- provided, of course, they remain substantive in content and scientific in tone. "         ----43 Comment-February 25, 1985  John D.Hamaker  I recently received a single page release which consisted of an article by an Irish journalist plus some commentary. Since the sheet has a distribution of 1000 and the newspaper was widely distributed in Ireland and concerns the TSOC position I feel obliged to challenge a few of the statements made.         The journalist probably mistakenly quotes the person he was interviewing about the ice age now developing as follows: "... he talks of covering the present veil with two feet of new soil, literally meaning moving mountains... 'The will to do ft, that's what we need, ' he says while admitting to the impossibility of the scheme, a voice crying out in the wilderness, warning about our eventual destruction. "    TSOC advocates not two feet of new veil but 3 to 10 tons per acre ground gravel dust worked into the present topsoils and repeated at intervals of one year for each ton applied or preferably as soon as possible so we can build our 7" and 8" topsoils into aerated topsoils two to three feet deep. That's not impossible. It is easier and less expensive than the present practice of annual dosages of chemicals. The problem canters around the fact that it would take a year or two to get the industry set in motion. We are very late in getting started and the odds are against our survival, but "win, rose, or drang" I'm for making a fight for our survival. The subject of the writer's article suggests two '1ast ditch" efforts wbich might have a holding effect until the TSOC recommendations can tering the CO2 down. One of these is the solar-space-reflector. The idee came out in the early 70's as I recall and was promptly abandoned as impractical. Suppose you got a sheet of polished aluminum foil 50 miles square set up over the earth at a latitude where the circumference of the earth rotating under the reflector is 10, 000 miles. The patch of light would take just 14.4 minutes to pass over any point on the earth at that latitude. How much good have you done by passing reflected sunlight over snow and ice for that short a period of time when 80 to 90% is reflected back into space? Measure that against the amount of energy (released by fossil fuels) required to launch such a reflector. Then you come down to the nitty gritty of designing and building such a reflector which would certainly require 10 years or more. The reflector is obviously worthless and probably harmful because of the amount of CO2 released in getting the unit into space. The object is to get CO2 out of space and for that reason all space operatlons should cease for the duration of the crisis. Also suggested is sometbing called a "cloudbuster. " On orders from Mr. Simon Legree Weaver I have been reviewing a 1961 publication, A New Method of Weather Control by Charles P. Kelley. Kelley did some experimenting in the northeastern state of Connecticut. He observed that trees were dying, rocks in his basement turned black, and his house was sufficiently toxic to affect the health of his family. The causes of these tbings are now known but Kelley thought it was caused by his use of a "cloudbuster" which resulted in DOR (deadly orgone radiation) contamination of the area.         According to Wilhelm Reich, Orgone (OR) was a beneficial type of energy and DOR its harmful opposite. Reich had noticed the same environmental problems that Kelley had noticed and ascribed them to DOR. Kelley followed Reich's explanation. Both men were psychologists, and apparently not competent observers of scientific phenomena.      Reich had built an apparatus consisting of a bundle of tubes 10 to 20 feet long which he could adm. This was connected to a similar bundle of tubes which were grounded. He could aim it at a small cloud in a generally sunny sky and make it disappear in about 20 minutes. He could leave it on for a couple of days and cause rein to fall. Since he could pick out any one of several clouds to make disappear it was highly directional. These are startling results. Kelley gives no clue as to a possible explanation and apparently none was presented by Reich. Instead he said he had discovered a new kind of energy which he named Orgone. I tbink any good electrical engineer would be thinkinE along the lines of the following hypothesis and doing a better job of it than this mechanica! engineer.       How Reich came up with such an apparatus is hard to imnEine. However, the genius of electrical phenomena and equipment Nikola Tesla had already come up with the Tesla coil which energized and aimed x-rays with high precision. The Reich apparatus must have been using the difference in potential between the atmosphere and ground to effect a flow of electrons (en electric current) to ground. The current flowing through the controlled flow lightning rod would set up a magnetic field around the tube. Since it affected the cloud, it is obvious that the magnetic flux bored its way through the air to the cloud serving as a pipe to conduct the electrons to ground. It would also seem that clouds can not exist without an excess charge of electrons because the cloud returned to water vapor, and it also seems apparent that when the apparatus is left aimed at the sky for a couple of days, the area becomes electron starved. Logically clouds surrounding the target area would be at a higher electrical charge. Since unlike charges attract each other, one would expect clouds to move toward the area of lower potential. That jibes with a long-held summertime observation that when an area gets dryer than surrounding areas, the next rein is apt to concantrate in the dry area. The scanario I have given would probably be the same as an electrical engineer or physicist would come up with when observing Reich's apparatus. Today numerous energy particles are controlled in a similar manner; but in the 50s governments were interested in Buck Rogers' ray gun and still are. My guess is in the 1950s anything that had anything to do with projecting and controlling energy particles was top secret. In any event Reich was handed an injunction obtained by the Food and Drug Administration that called for the destruction of all Reich's books and all components of his Orgone accumulators. The grounds were mis-labeling and claiming therapeutic value for the accumulators. Since Orgone behavior paralleled electrical phenomena I'd say it is a safe bet that the accumulators were metal boxes charged negatively. People would sit in it for awhile and come out feeling better. Its modern counterpart is a small electronic box which emits electrons into the air and is supposed to neutralize the positively charged particles such as ozone, and for that matter all the positively charged radicale given off by toxic chemicals in the house. I have a hunch that Reich's Orgone accumulators did a better job of inactivating the dangerous radicals which now inhabit all of us because in the inclosure the body could be saturated with negative electrons more effectively. In my opinion the F.D.A. went far beyond the "intent of Congress" to get Reich to shut up. Reich ignored the injunction and was jailed and died there. The Reich - Kelley story is of no interest to me. They were just doing what all the rest of us were doing in those days -- trying to work against Nature instead of with her. Hindsight tells us that doesn't work a "hoot. " What concerns me is that we now have a proposal to set up batteries of "cloudbusters" to dissipate the clouds before they reach the land -- from California and Alaska and around the Aleutian island for instance. Optimally we would put strips on station a mile or two apart with "cloudbusters" aimed at the banks of clouds as they come in. We are talking about putting a lot of fossil fuel energy into the air to get that fine of strips and "cloudbusters" into place so we better be sure this thing is going to work. Consider the possibilities. The thing works and the clouds are dissipated but not the water vapor or the energy in it. They just pass over the "cloudbusters" and re-form into clouds over the land.     So instead of dissipating the clouds we will precipitate them in the ocean. How do we get the volcanic dust and cola air also required for precipitation? The "cloudbusters" can only invite the clouds to an area of low electrical potential. They can not cause precipitation -only tering the potential for precipitation to a particular area. It would have little if any effect on the total precipitation on land or sea. The conclusion is inescapable that "doudbusters" can not be used to stop the clouds from building up the glaciated area. There is a strong streek of rationality in what Reich was doing. Possibly his real purpose was "free power. " If he could get a strong enough electron flow at high enough potential (voltage), he could run it through a motor on lts way to ground. He very wisely stopped short of trying to tap the energy in a real storm front that might have given the required power because he would have been risking inviting a lightning strike. Not many people want to tangle with that sort of voltage and amperage in their electrical equipment let alone being in the area when it hits. I suspect that he invented the Orgone thing in hopes of avoiding a possible patent infringement suit which would have put him out of business. So he probably had a choice of potential enemies, the military and those who sell power. In any event, the Orgone accumulator was used by the FDA to put him out of business.         Let's look at "free power". Suppose the energy for the whole world were supplied by the difference in potential between the atmosphere and the crust of the earth. What would be the effect? Fossil fuel is "free energy" from nature with the ownership racket impressed on it and it is killing us. If we dragged down the atmospheric potential to the extent that clouds would not form, would we have a hot muggy climate with veil too dry to grow crops? You can bet that power comes from some naturel power source -- the wind?, the earth's magnetic field?, solar energy? Whatever the source there will be many interlocked effects which experience shows will penalize those who exploit nature without providing compensating action to restore the balance of nature. It does seem that wherever amateurs set up "cloudbusters", government people show up. They may perceive some real danger not perceived by me. Maybe drawing down the potential blanks out, or creates statie in communications in the area. Whatever their reason, weather control equipment of all kinds does rothing more than change the distribution of precipitation for the benefit of some areas to the detriment of others.            If there really is the potential for "free energy" in "cloudbusters", then it ought to have every right to be developed which is enjoyed by fossil fuels -- which is no right at all. The necessity for survival dictates a massive decrease in atmospheric CO2. Only a worldwide austerity program on the use of all fuels, in combination with a massive veil remineralization and tree planting program, will give us a chance of survival.        Comment- May 10, 1985         John D. Hamaker   Below are summarizing statements from rather lengthy correspondence from Thomas E. Greco, Jr. and Don Werkheiser.           Both are committed to the idee of decentralization of power as advocated by Ralph Borsodi, whose "A Decentralist Manifesto" I have reviewed.    Both write as critics of Chapter 7, TSOC.         "Thank you for your thoughtful letter. I agree that we are philosophically 'in cahoots' but there do seem to be a couple of points of disagreement. M~inly, you seem to believe that cantralization of power is what is called for given the crisis situation of the impending glaciation. To me, centralization of power and decision making is the problem. It is the manifestation of an elitist mentality which includes a willingness to use coercion and is moving the world towards tyranny. What Michael Tobin calls technocratic fascism, and Borsodi called materialistic barbarism, is the notion that the human intellect is supreme, i. e. it stems from a detachment from the divine and lack of respect for things spiritual. I believe in 'group genius'. We together can come up with better ideas and approaches to problems than any of us can individually when it comes to social questions. People must be free to express their thoughts and feelings and problem solutions must be dynamic and adjustable. The guy at the top of the hierarchy can't know 'where the shoe pinches'. The toes must be consulted, and if their laterests are devalued and ignored the whole body suffers eventually. I guess I tend to be a decentralist and not a statist. ... "You confuse me with your last point. You say it's time to establish economie freedom and destroy the rule of wealth. I am in complete agreement. I also agree that we all must puil together to make it through. But you seem to be committed to a hierarchical system which denies freedom and allow wealth to rule. We the people must do it ourselves. 'They' can't save us. Why hold on to  structures that don't work? When it's time for the snake to shed his skin, he must let go of the old one to survive. The shell of the egg is protection for the embryo but a prison for the chick. It's time for us to become responsible, or lose our freedom. " (Tom Greco) [Editor's note: In the following, SOR stands for "Single option relationship", MOR is "Mutual option relationship."] "So, the first thing to do is to create the "rand embedding context game, the sovereignty game of MOR. This would be a revolutionary shift from SOR to MOR. It must begin in the minds of individuals, and would involve a personal commitment to abandon SOR in one's life, and to diligently cultivate MOR. With a pool of committed individuals, a contract Society could be formed. A MOR Society would provide peaceful and just alternative games. We are free in so far as we have alternatives. Those who benefit from the present SOR systems are not likely to give them to us. We have to do our own, or do without. P. 190T: Re proposed revision of U.S. Constitution. As a social contract, it is a fraud (see Spooner). The presumption is that authority starts from the top down. In a free Society it would start from the bottom up. In the U.S. Constitution the people are subjects. Tn a true contract, the people would be principale, and the officers would be agente, personally accountable. In the U.S. Constitution the officers are immune: Art. I, Sec. 6, ". ..and for any speech or debate (and by implication, vote) in either House they shall not be questioned [held legally accountable] in any other place " [Previous two brackets by Don Werkheiser.] "Albert J. Nock showed in Our Enemy The State that 'As State power increases, Social power decreases.' Also, that when we give someone power to do something for us, we give equal power to do something to us. You want an Educational and an Environmental Congress, yet history shows that all such agencies tend to be dominated by those they are intended to regulate. "You are obviously trying to formulate a free Society game embedded in a SOR State game, and it is impossible. The embedding game determines the outcome of the embedded games. Society is already extinguished. "Am I clear? We need a revolutionary shift from SOR State to MOR Society. This must be preceded by a psychological Copernican revolution of the mina. The people range from those who are least ready to those most ready. It must be started by the most ready, and then work back to the next most ready. The most ready must begin by finding each other, and communicate. But is there time? The weather is fair and warm. It is difficult to think an Ice Age is immanent. Amity and MOR." (Don Werkheiser) To my opinion Borsodi made three rather common mistakes as follows. 1. He assumes that the fact that the National government exists inevitably means it will be corrupted because the elected legislators are too far away from the electors and of course they always have become corrupted 2. He assumes that groups of people springing up here and there can learn morel and intellectual values which in time will leed most of the people to an appreciation of the need to reform all institutions and laws to build a worldwide human society. 3. He assumes that the federation of small local units governed as a people's democracy can establish higher units of federation with specific functions delegated by the people in the local communities, thus elirninating the power of the state over people. He believes that the entire world can be organized in this manner so the world federation can maintain peace. Assumption (1) is incorrect. The cause of corruption of government (and all the rest of our institutions) is the existing laws which insure that the rich will get richer and the poor will get pover. Large pools of wealth carry great power over many people. When, as is always the case, one or a small group of people control a pool of wealth, its power is invariably used to serve the interest of the controllers of the power at the expense of the powerless. Assumption (2) is proven incorrect. The priests and preachers have been saying for 2, 000 years that when we have better people we will have a just society. That's a "cop-out" of course and not what Christ said. History shows that people have tolerated all manner of mores, customs, langs, and institutions without "arising to redress their grievances". As a matter of fact the churches have adopted the economie measure which Christ condemned in order to accumulate wealth. 'lf you can't lick 'em. join 'em. " The Yippies of the 60's are the Yuppies of the 80's.         Borsodi's assumption (3) is pure idealism which as a practical matter will not work. The Christian church has been splintered into more sects than I know about simply because people can not accept a single set of alleged-to-be morel principles. The new Nazis, for instance, favor decentralization. They also believe in preying on other components of society. Without a national government to maintain law and order common to all segments of society, decentralization would very quickly throw us back to the age of feudalism with countless small armed groups warring between themselves. I find the whole idee of decentralization is based on false perceptions. I do not think that persuasion alone will ever change society. I do think that, if a program is presented as a preferable alternative, that in a period of 20 or 30 years people would move toward the better alternative. Enactment of the laws proposed in Chapt. 7 of TSOC would provide major advantages to everyone in the country. However I figure it would take about 20 years to convince the farmers that they should not have the right to pass on their land to their sons or daughters as a gift. But look what has happened. Under a policy of the bankers who run the country of eliminating farmers via the proven effective method of allowing farmers more credit than their assets are worth, farmers have been driven off the land for decades. Right now farmers are leaving their land to the bankers in wholesale numbers. Obviously farmers should be not only willing but happy to give up the right of inheritance which has been a major factor in accumulating the massive wealth whose power is now wiping out farmers, factories, and the whole "middle class" in this nation. The time and energy are no longer available to explain to every segment of society the real advantages to them of living under a set of laws which would insure economic freedom and justice. Nature is now dictating human affairs. She has presented an alternative which makes the universal acceptance of a rule of just law look very attractive. Her alternative is death. Those who have used the power of wealth to make all the bad decisions for us are now totally incapable of rational response to nature's intens. The only possible rational response is to cut loose from the rule of wealth and do it now. Tom Greco and Don Werkheiser make a number of statements which I find to be very surprising. Both think Chapt. 7 calls for centralization of power. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Taking environmental affairs out of the present Congress and putting them in the hands of elected environmentalists from every state is a decided decentralization of power. An awful lot of Washington lobbyists would be looking for new jobs. The same is true of a Congress for education. All three Congresses would have time to consider in detail what they are doing and they would all be much more open to people who are interested in particular subjects. If at the same time the corrupting influence of great wealth is removed we can again have honest elections and dedicated "public servants". Elimination of power is the purpose of Chapt. 7, TSOC. If the charges of law will do that we will be "free at Iast" of government run by and for the wealthy. The fact that I have advocated a temporary emergency suspension of civil law, which at present could put the survival effort back at least 10 years while courts grind out decisions, should not confuse people about the necessity for the change of Constitutional law. Those charges would necessitate a total overhaul of civil law. We have an emergency situation and only an emergency response will give us any chance of survival. During WWII this country was virtually run by the War Production Board under emergency legislation. They allocated materials, assigned production and in every way expedited the greatest delivery of war supplies and materie! wer seen on this earth. If everyone in this country understood the magnitude of the present crisis, we would be operating that way right now. Unfortunately freedom of the press has fellen victim to the job control of journaliste  in the three major TV networks and the Public Broadcasting Stations. Since that is where most people get their news, we, as a people, remain ignorant of the crisis. For anything effective to happen, everyone must understand the crisis and there must be emergency legislation to make possible the mobilization of all our strength to get done what must be done to effect our survival. Werkheiser, I think, is a bit hard on the U.S. Constitution considering the fact that the only reason both of us are free to write and publish what we think, is that the Constitution says we can and it is protected by the Judicial Branch of Government against the encroachment of the other two branches. If economie justice and freedom are added to the Constitution, the present threat to all our political freedoms will no longer exist. Every rational human right placed in the Constitution diminishes the power of the state over the individual.    I think that Thomas Jefferson and his immediate associates did a great job in establishing our form of government. Jefferson knew it was not a perfect instrument but simply all he could get from a Congress dominated by slave owners. It is up to us to do the rest of the job.           In my opinion, I am the decantralist and Borsodi is simply extending an invitation to chaos. The world has worked a long time to produce some reasonably good governmental structure and civil institutions; but they can not stand as long as the cantralization of wealth is permitted to corrupt them and impoverish the people.    Make no mistake. There are very tough times just ahead. We had better "bite the bullet" and do what we have to do.      For those people who have not yet discovered how completely we are controlled by those who control the centralized pools of wealth, I recommend the reading of The World Order by Eustace Mullins. Read it for its historical data - and ignore the conclusions.     Mullins recommends trying our controllers under existing laws covering criminal syndicalism. Mullins concludes, "Freed from this plague, the world will enter upon a Golden Age of Peace, Justice and Honor. "     If we "bump off" all the people who have supported the establishment there will be very few people left on earth.     "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. "    It should be clear to anyone who reads The World Order that it is absolutely necessary to change the laws to eliminate the centralization of wealth. There can never be peace in the world until the greed in all of us is curbed by law. EUSTACE MULLINS' new book THE WORLD ORDER EZRA POUND INSTITUTE OF CIVILIZATION Post Office Box 1105; Staunton, Virginia 24401   Comment - June 1985      John D. Hamaker By accident or intent we seem to be getting good research relating to the tectonic system these days. In the May 11, 1985 Science News, p. 294, the article, "Ocean Drilling, " describes findings of Leg 101 of the Ocean Drilling Program. The drilling was done in the waters of the Bahama Islands off the coast of Florida and within the Bermuda Triangle. The islands rest on thick beds of limestone separated by wide, deep channels, some of which make 90 degree turns. The limestone is about 160 million to 100 million years old. Then the deposition of shallow water carbonate ceased. The purpose of the exploration was to see if the limestone of 160 million years ego (or any other deposit) continued in the channels at lower elevation. They were unable to check as deep as some would have liked but found none with the testing which was done. They also found the limestone in one location at 500 meters depth just offshore from a still intact limestone "platform".         All of this is highly corroborative of the explanation of conditions in the Bermuda Triangle as described in TSOC. That area of the ocean floor is in tension. The channels are tension tears in the ocean floor -- the only possible explanation -- and they are certain to be found all over the area, not just in the Bahamas. The 60 million years of carbonate deposition resulted from the huge output of CO2 by the catastrophic events which split the Americas from Europe and Africa. It was deposited all over the world which is why limestone can be found on all the land masses. The ocean floors have almost all of them been recycled through the continental heaters. Most of the recycled carbonate is now secreted in the crust as petroleum and gas. Carbonate deposits in the last 100 million years are much smaller and principally shallow water deposits. There are no limestone layers in the channels between the limestone "platforms". An underwater examination at the bottom of the surface of the Cayman Trench, certainly the largest of the splits, shows that the trench floor is covered with "pillow lava". As the crack in the crust pulled apart, the basalt boiled up from the "gunk" layer under the crust and sealed the leek. Such a floor is thin (like a ridge floor). In the formation of a wide floor of this type it is inevitable that the vertical flow of hydraulic fluid would develop strong feeders from the circulation system 225 miles below. Then any variation in hydraulic pressure would crack the floor at its weakest point (the canter). Continuous bleeding through that crack would develop into a ridge action to tighten up the loose floor. There already may be an embryonic ridge action observable by underwater exploration at the east and of the Cayman Trench. A study some months ago reported virtual "storms" in the waters of the Bermuda Triangle. That is not surprising. Where there are thin floors and thick floors the difference in heat transmission is bound to set up turbulent conditions. That would be especially true when the channels were emitting hot basalt and gases.   The scientists who are studying Leg. 101 do not understand what they have observed. They look only at the area they have observed. There is no mention of the fact that they are working within the Bermuda Triangle where everything is strenge and unusual. They have no knowledge of how the tectonic system works. One wonders if they ever will know. So their data will join the countless bits and pieces of information virtually all of which are easily integrated with the TSOC explanation.              Two geophysicists at the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., have produced some excellent research (Science News, 5/25/85). The research of Peter Vogt and John Brozena was reviewed by Science News under the title: "Earth's 'Pulses' Tied to Plate Rates".. They found by studying the six mid-ocean ridges that their rates of growth varied by plus-or-minus 20%. They all varied at the same time. 2. They found that increased prate rates coincided with increased volcanism. 3. They found that increased prate rates coincided with glaciation.         4. They found that peak prate movements occurred 4 to 5 million years ago and 12 to 16 -million years ego at the peaks of glacial epochs. The first three findings are familiar to TSOC readers. The fourth tells us we could all learn more about the last 65 million years and the sequence of events in the destruction of the old Mid-Pacific Ridge, if the study went beyond the last 20 million years. The additional research that could be done seems without limit. Surely we have enough information and enough demonstration of nature's intent for the Congress to decide on a course of action. Unfortunately, in the middle of a crisis of human survival, the Congress has more important things to do -- like playing games with the income tax. They call it "tax reform".       
Stat installed near the end of july 2001 (in about 18 files)