Super Star … and yet

Definitions come into play here.  Michael Jackson cannot be denied his contributions to the music industry.  At one point the guy saved it from near collapse although it never would have died completely (can I say that?)  He piled up records (as in Guinness records) the same way he piled up Grammy’s and other awards.  He generated enormous sums, not only in the music business but in charity, song catalogue rights, newspaper sales, book sales — he wrote a best seller – video, amusement parks and in many ways eclipsed the other pop icons of the last century.

 

When my dad was 20 he was living in San Francisco and he stood in a two block long line-up to get tickets to see Al Jolson perform.  You remember Al Jolson, don’t you? — he sang “Mammy”.  In black face yet; starred in the first “talking” motion picture, a terrible piece of crap called “The Jazz Singer”.  He sang to sold out audiences almost every night from the 19-teens to the early 30’s and came back in the 40’s when a couple of bio-films resurrected his career despite a voice which had sunk at least two octaves. Al Jolson was the century’s first super-star.

 

Radio did more for Bing Crosby than any other living person in the Depressed 1930’s.  Grabbing hold of a style called ‘crooning” he was wooden compared to Jolson’s flailing stage antics but the USA and any part of the world that could hear Crosby’s records embraced him above all his contemporaries. He used radio to attract fans; he was a matinee idol; his voice was perfect for what he managed to achieve. Bing Crosby was the century’s second super star.

 

Although Frank Sinatra did not kill off Crosby, he took crooning to a new level and while Crosby was just an average joe, Frank introduced sex into popular music and when he broke with Tommy Dorsey and went out on his own he lugged around a screaming mass of teenagers, 90 percent female, who were dubbed bobby soxers (saddle shoes and ankle sox) and took to fainting when Frank made love to a microphone in the same way one would sweet-talk a woman. He was controversial; draft deferred, men were jealous of the skinny guy with the bow-tie and the kiss-curl. Frank Sinatra would become the century’s third super-star.

 

Sinatra would be lionized as the years passed and his antics were legend. He was a star attraction for the grocery store press. Vegas mob attachments didn’t hurt his popularity, just gave him mystique.   He even managed to survive in the face of popular music being over-run by a monarch of mush named Mitch Miller who introduced slop  that stunk up the charts with pap about doggies in windows, sparrows in treetops, wild geese, shrimp boats and the fact that ‘a guy is a guy’. God Bless Elvis.

 

Presley was the one who opened the door wide to Rock ‘n’ Roll. He had help.  Chuck Berry began writing Rock ‘n’ Roll songs and so did Buddy Holly. One was black and one was white and it made no difference, it was the music that counted.  Presley was the real glue for several years: 1956 to 1964 which spanned his stint in the army, Elvis was on a throne, albeit a kingdom restricted to the young and impressionable.  Once again the tabloids dug dung about a musical phenomenon.  Elvis Presley was the century’s fourth super star.

 

Everybody reading this pretty much knows the story of the Beatles.  Like the chart-busters who preceded them, they clawed their way to the top.  Since screaming young girls began with Sinatra, so they continued through Presley and on to the four British musicians.  The Beatles music was fresh and they deserved accolades along with the tribe of Brits they brought with them.  The Beatles, as a group,  were the century’s fifth super stars. 

 

There were pretenders after the Beatles break-up in the early 70’s, most notably Elton John.  Then it was Disco and the focus shifted off of individual personalities and turned inward.  The red lipstick, gold chain bunch. 

 

So much for history.

 

— 

 

The story of Michael Jackson is playing as you read this.  Everywhere.  I’ve talked with people on four continents  and it’s all a lot of guess work … drugs? stress? the reasons, true or false, are really moot. 

 

The question is: was Michael Jackson a super-star in the same sense as the five I mentioned above?  I don’t know.  A dear friend in Dubai used the word poignant in describing his life.  All the super stars I’ve mentioned are iconic, none are poignant.  They were, none of them, as big as their many parts and nowhere was that more obvious than with Michael Jackson.  The question begs answering — here is a 50 year old man who survived a disgusting childhood, warped for life by a mentally disturbed father, blasted into world recognition on the basis of the highest selling recording ever — reaching a height from which he could only descend: how could he handle all that we have read about him? 

 

Two crushing attacks from individuals, the Chandlers (22 million, thank you) and the Arvisos may only indicate what? that they were the flotsam that surfaces in an environment where a life is  conducted which at least “seems” to be abnormal.  A bit bent?  However Liz Taylor says it wasn’t like that.  Well, Liz Taylor is not a member of the average public and we will never know the answers to those two disturbances … to use a rather light description.  

 

The publicity, self generated at first then a detachment from reality; the gurus and the searching; the changes in his mind about the changes in him — his body — his persona. What could we have possibly known about this man?  He has been where none of us, not even those who preceded him at the top of the colossus which is the world of pop music, have rested.  Super-Star?  A gifted showman but housed in the essence of what Billie Holiday referred to as Strange Fruit. 

 

You don’t have to like his music.  One day, not too distant, his legacy will show that he was responsible for selling one billion records.  You still don’t have to like his music, it’s not about music –  it’s about one individual generating something that sold that much of anything.

 

Kids and later most of their parents, often grudgingly, absorbed the 20th century’s idols, the five I mentioned.  Michael Jackson does not fit that class of performer. Yes, he made a movie, he wrote a book, he was charitable, he was stylish but his prime asset, his music, stopped attracting many when Hip Hop and New Jack Swing took over.  Those genres don’t attract an older audience.  Not in the white world where most of the money is spent.  “Beat It” will never be accepted by those who espouse “Yesterday“, “Are You Lonesome Tonight” or “I’ve Got you Under My Skin“. 

 

Michael — and his female compatriot, Madonna, are infamous for drawing attention to themselves.  So did their predecessors but not to the extent and not in a world where information travels as does lightening.  Twitter and Facebook fast.  Nor lurked a media which takes advantage of “I-information”. 

 

I repeat: we just don’t know exactly what possessed Michael Jackson, what demons or angels  And is it worth the hassle to concern ourselves?  I don’t think so. Was he the sixth super star of the last century?  In many ways he was, and yet something was different….

 

It’s all part of The Passing Parade, which like nature, has no conscience.      

 

This Is Earth, Not Venus

In my last post I referred to the work of Dr. A Neil Hutton writing in the The Reservoir, published by the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, who refutes the findings of the politically motivated, heavily funded organization fronted by Al Gore et al who cleaned up on awards a couple of years ago while touting the findings of The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  This bunch claimed that it is human beings who are causing a warming of Earth’s climate through carbon emissions in the form of CO2 gas and turning our atmosphere into a furnace which would, if not stopped, turn us into spent bar-b-cue coals.  This characterization of humanity on a skewer is known as the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis. Stated differently, if we don’t quit with the CO2 build-up we and all the animals will die.

 

I quoted Hutton who points out that CO2 levels aren’t large enough to make the slightest difference in the temperature of our climate.  The truth is that while part of the Earth is getting a bit warmer, the average temperature has actually become fractionally cooler in recent years. 

 

There is nothing strange about the Roman warm period, the Dark Ages cold period, the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age and the present warming trend. Four distinct periods which were not all that noticeable really unless you are a scientist measuring sea temperatures which brings up the salient point, up until this present warming period the technology to measure the temperature in the troposphere or on the surface of the oceans or several feet under the surface of the oceans simply did not exist.  Our knowledge was derived from ice core samples and tree rings.

 

Something else pointed out by Dr Hutton, (whose list of references covers pages), La Nina and El Nino were unknown until recently and such a thing as Global Climate Change was not necessarily all that Global but more of a world-wide average condition meaning the over-all climatic condition is not fool-proof. The average temperature of Europe may be offset by the average temperature of China which could vary be several degrees over a period of time.  As an example, during the Dark Ages Cold period Europe was chilly while China was less so. We know this by studying core samples and tree rings.

 

While debunking the AGW hypothesis by dispensing with the severity of CO2 as the culprit it should be noted that the IPCC claims that we are experiencing warming through greenhouse gasses which they also attribute to man-made CO2 emission.  Well greenhouse gasses is a term that is not only incorrect, it is just plain silly.  The Earth’s atmosphere does not in any way resemble the atmosphere inside a greenhouse.  Just think about it.  A greenhouse is a glass enclosed cubicle in which any air that is circulated is blown around by a fan.  The Earth’s atmosphere is not an enclosed space, it is, in fact, the opposite of a greenhouse.  The reason we call a greenhouse, a greenhouse is because it is enclosed.  

 

The air that circulates around our globe does so at the behest of the wind, the jet streams, the ocean currents – something known as the Coriolis force.  Air is driven North where it is cooled and then circulates back towards the tropics.  The reverse occurs in the Southern hemisphere. Water vapour, which makes up approximately 95 percent of the gaseous atmosphere of our planet is controlled by convection.  Warm surface water in the oceans evaporates until it reaches a certain height where it cools and falls back to earth as precipitation.  This is going on all over the globe and keeps the planet in what scientist term as equilibrium.  Now compare that to a greenhouse where one grows orchids or tomatoes. A six year old child can see the difference.  Greenhouse gasses when applied to the earth’s atmosphere is like comparing a hot air balloon to a 747… they work on an entirely different principal.  Hot air is trapped within the balloon, which has absolutely nothing to do with jet propulsion.

 

(While I’m talking about water I should withdraw something I said last post when I mentioned hydrogen-powered vehicles.  Stan has pointed out that quote: “It takes more energy to dissociate a molecule of water … than you will get out of recombining it to water” quoting a fundamental law of thermodynamics.  He was referring to the fact that electrical energy to perform such recombining comes from coal fired plants. Let me add to that by saying while such plants produce carbon emissions, they are far more deadly when it comes to contributing to the pollution in the air around the world’s industrial centers than they are at causing Global Warming.) 

 

Greenhouse effect insinuates the conditions on other objects in our solar system  If one wishes to speak of a such an effect, look to the planet Venus which is completely shrouded in thick sulphuric acid clouds and has an atmosphere which is over 95 percent carbon dioxide. This beautiful “star” which is seen as a diamond alternating between late morning and evening after, and in some cases before, sunset is a fake.  Atmospheric conditions on Venus are as extreme as anywhere in the solar system, it has a surface temperature of over 460 degrees C.  The CO2 is trapped under the reflective brilliant cloud cover as air is trapped in a greenhouse on Earth.  

 

The members of the International Panel on Climate Change would have you think that Earth suffers from a greenhouse effect by stating that Earth sends thermal (infrared) radiation from the surface out to be absorbed by the cooler, higher atmosphere, (clouds) and re-radiated back to Earth.  Well another of the laws of thermodynamics states: it is impossible for a body of low temperature to pass naturally to a body of high temperature without work (an engine such as air currents), meaning that the cool upper atmosphere cannot radiate heat back to Earth’s surface thereby creating a greenhouse effect.  The term is over-used and was at one time thought to play a factor in warming our planet but this idea has since been debunked.  However old ideas are hard to break — as are old terms. 

 

One more item on the reading of the planet’s temperature.  It was found when studying various temperature gauges throughout the world that many were positioned in what can, in layman’s terms be referred to as “unscientific places” such as on rooftops of heat absorbing cement and metal buildings, near vents which blew warm air, etc.  When the placement of these “thermometers” was studied in recent years a considerable percentage of them were found to be affected by circumstances that gave less than accurate readings — some as high as three degrees Fahrenheit.

 

The Sun plays a rule in all this and I’ll tackle that next time.  In the meantime please do not be concerned unduly about the change in climate, if indeed, there really is one and what warming there is, is beyond our control. It is a cyclical dynamic of this planet. .  Do, however be concerned about polluting the atmosphere. While it may not increase the global temperature, it poisons the air we breath and degrades the beauty of our planet.  

A Vast Lie

A VAST LIE
In January of this year, Dr. A. Neil Hutton writes in The Reservoir — the oracle of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists that many geologists did not appear to have a clear understanding of the range of current research, or were relying on the media which Hutton terms as “uncritical” and has done a remarkably poor job in reporting on global warming by simply — as he puts it, “regurgitating the spin produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC). This is the group that was formed in 1988 by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Association and has recently been fronted by former US Vice-President Al Gore, who a couple of years ago was dancing around the world picking up prizes; the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar, awarded to the IPCC. Wrongly.

The use of the word “spin”, says Dr. Hutton, is used to describe how the IPCC does not always reflect the opinions of scientific geological reports. In fact, it actually contradicts the opinions of scientists. Why would they do that? One word: politics. And politics means money. Pork barrel in nature. The IPCC has made the statement; quote “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed in the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Sorry, the scientists have other ideas: “The fact that the Global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th Century … does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic (man-made) effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time scales so the observed time change may be natural.”

The result of this media storm has led the public to assume that the Earth is warming; citing the melting of glaciers, the breakup of the Arctic and Antarctic ice packs and various other weather calamities, blaming it on the increase of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) in our ecosystem. It is true there has been warming, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, but this is not attributable to CO2. To begin with there are only .037 parts per million in volume (PPMV) of CO2 in our atmosphere. That’s like one straw on the camels’ back. Most of us know that the atmosphere is made up of nitrogen and oxygen and a few trace gasses of which CO2 is one. It’s as if saying all the neon lights in Las Vegas are depleting the atmosphere of neon gas which will result in the “dire effect” of Las Vegas going dark..

Despite this minimal amount of CO2 the “Anthropogenic, Global Warming, Hypotheses” has been ballyhooed on television, in the press, in countless periodicals, frightened people and played into the pockets of politicians, none of whom know what the hell they are talking about. Furthermore the media blitz has been adopted as “proof” by the Green Movement who have pounded their ploughshares into swords and attacked the scientific community for daring to express credibility and integrity in real studies of our planet’s equilibrium with the result that it is now difficult for scientists to obtain funding to research these climactic changes that are evident.
United States President George W. Bush dispersed more than 35 billion dollars during his term in office on climate research. Much of the money used unnecessarily. And there is no let-up in sight as current President Barack Obama has placed Global Warming near the top of his detailed programs while in office.
In his report, Dr. Hutton has belittled the IPCC’s global warming hypothesis, which the panel equates to some kind of universal hibachi, by relegating carbon dioxide to where it belongs; unwarranted. There is simply no scientific evidence that human activity has had any effect on global warming since records were kept 260 years ago.
The IPCC claims that the increase in warmth during the last half century is unusual and “very likely” caused by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. It is recorded history (prior to the more sophisticated equipment used in the last two and a half centuries) that there have been many warm and cool eras such as the Little Ice age, the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period. Both the Medieval and the Roman warm periods had temperatures higher than our present warming. It should be noted that during those two periods there were a distinct lack of motor vehicles, industrial complexes and other carbon emitting entities.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that catastrophe sits like a spider in the cupboard ready to pounce on humankind in less than a century — unless of course man-made emissions are not set right by the expenditure of great sums of money to avoid the oncoming upheaval. Government agencies should point the way, big business should find answers — after all is it not politicians and the CEO’s of the business world who have saved us in the past? Or is it possible they are the culprits?
–
Look, nobody is saying that we do not need to clean up the air in our urban areas; cut down on pollution of all kinds; return as much of the barren lands on the planet to a more productive surface. In many parts of the world our cities stink with foul gasses coupled with the reek of uncontrolled industrial run-off and air-born pollutants. This is harmful and it is ugly and it causes disease and unmentionable problems that affect the inhabitants. So it is in the interests of world leadership to go about righting what is wrong with our 21st century life-style. Hydrogen run vehicles, a lesser reliance on coal fired industry, a push towards cleaner air is needed. Only a fool would advocate otherwise.
But have we as human beings caused a real and detrimental change to the climate of our planet? No. We have fouled the air but we have not, emphatically not, caused the melting of the polar ice and glaciers. I have only touched on but a few of the basic reasons, a mere snippet of the platter of garbage handed out by agencies like the IPCC and its mouthpiece, the media. The result being miss-spent currency and the lining of political pockets coupled with the outspoken blather of award-collecting, high profile icons as they flutter about with their pet “causes”.
The work of Dr. Hutton and of hundreds of other honest, investigative, learned research scientists from through-out the world is slipping out of sight and their funding is drying up due to the claptrap of extroverts like Gore as he presides over his club of ill-informed, ignorant Evangelists of Puff. And if we haven’t heard much from the former VP lately, the media will soon find another point man or golden girl just waiting to present more “proof” of why things are the way they are and they will blame us … not nature. Stay tuned.