A “Lib Dem” minister just told Sky News he was approving new nuclear power stations to promote green jobs. If anybody ever votes for these lying bastards again I shall be disconsolate.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Hi Courtney,
The concept sounds good in itself (given practical conditions) The trampling reducing fire risk/speed, and breaking the ground to increase absorbtion of rain and fertilization from dung. Could be sound given practical conditions and application.
But the message/messenger is quite flakey. He only references his own ‘gem’ case studies, some impressive statements and not solid statements and no solid numbers.
Parts sound too good to be true, he says in one case he bet $5 that no one could find a grass plant within miles, that no one did and he doubled the size of a herd being kept on that land with no feed (perhaps meant no increase in feed?) – and that worked.
That does sound to good to be true. Which farmers are feeding their cattle twice as much as they need, or keeping half the cattle they could for a given feed? I think that is a matter which farmers, especially poor farmers have been refining desparately for ever. He says he just put twice as many cattle in the worst terrain and they trampled and fertilized it greener in a year… a non drought year.
Right enough, the place could be so poor they may have eaten all the cattle, there could be other explainations, but none which soberly support the tales purpose – to convince that this technique is proven.
Also it is easy to take pictures of a place in relative drought and contrast with some time after a rain, tell everyone its due to a specific technique which corrects thousands of papers on supposedly politicised climate science (while it hardly overlaps), and is a wonder-solution. I think you could get some polarized funding and encouragement for such a message.
Crab:
His claim is based upon the amount of carbon captured by grassland as opposed to bare earth, calculated over a given area. These are not tenuous concepts.
I don’t know if he’s correct to draw the conclusion that “what we are doing globally is causing climate change as much fossil fuels if not more.” However he is an expert in his field and his argument is plausible.
This illustrates that it is wise to keep an open mind about the mechanics of climate change. đ
Aye thats a long list of evil there Benny.
List of countries the USA has bombed since the end of World War II
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia â Serbia 1999
Afghanistan 2001
Libya 2011
Forgot Pakistan ( Drones count these days )
and Korea = both North and south, although the North suffered vastly more.
“Since the evidence presented was in fact global, then the variabilities to which you refer are belied by the global references and results â surely?”
Sorry i missed these references, giving it a hopeful but hurried and a bit disappointed listening. By local variability of climate i meant if i do a technique to regreen areas to 20 places and do nothing, some 12 get more arid and 8 get greener by themselves. So to confirm such a technique what you need is quite a big cohort of studies, not just talk about the greatest.
No doubt it should be studied en mass immediately.
Its far better than studying poisonous and risky radioactive processes for another decade to see if economical electricity can be made from it with weapon offshots ^^
“His claim is based upon the amount of carbon captured by grassland as opposed to bare earth, calculated over a given area. These are not tenuous concepts.”
As stated, the claim was beyond tenous Node. It was not grassland that was destroyed, it was dry grass burned Node (assumed to grow back next rain)
“I donât know if heâs correct to draw the conclusion that âwhat we are doing globally is causing climate change as much fossil fuels if not more.â However he is an expert in his field and his argument is plausible.”
You just say that, he gave no plausible argument, he simply fleetingly expressed a couple of maverick opinions. He has no expertise in climate science, atmospheric physics or anything similar, he is a biological engineer.
“This illustrates that it is wise to keep an open mind about the mechanics of climate change. đ ”
It illustrates what little it takes to open some minds to the belief of terrible failure and conspiracy in technical earth sciences (funded by the gubmint).
You don’t help your case by misrepresenting his claims. He is talking about capturing and retaining carbon with his techniques.
But the main point is you are completely dismissing his views when you have very little idea of his competence to hold them. He is, as you said, a biological engineer – he should know more than you about the role of carbon in grasslands. You are arguing from the point of view that this guy is going against AGW orthodoxy therefore he’s wrong.
As a matter of fact, I share your reservations about the reliability of this guys ideas, but I took the opportunity to demonstrate to you the self-fulfilling logic of your position, which is:
Experts agree on the causes of climate change. Anyone who disagrees can’t be an expert. Therefore there is no credible debate.
If you had to invent a science to make money out of – by way of cushy research grants and unnecessary machinery and taxes…
What kind of science, what sort of necessities would you choose?
“The moon will float away if we dont replenish deep aquifers”
“Plastics will poison the ocean we must build enornmous extractors in oceanic gyres to catch and recycle it, and we must tax plastic production”
“Terrible asteroids might hit us if we dont build many search and tracking telescopes and adapt missile technology to anticipate threats at the furthest possible ranges”
– Two of those ideas already sound sensible*
Why not spin them up a bit to make lots of money?
Why “blow up” the greenhouse effect then?
The greenhouse relationship being, a basic formula on planetary thermodynamics first proposed by french the mathematician fourier as a fleeting curiosity, asides to his more famous techniques and theory.
Green house effect now elaborated on by hundreds of professional specialists in multiple empirical fields and reviewed by many academic communities of hundreds and thousands of technically capable peers.
Finally Debated and reviewed by a non governmental international panel, who’s advice has been mostly ignored by the worlds governments despite now many years of urgent conclusions.
The greenhouse effect — hasnt fooled enough people, it was caught out by maverick scientists spotting errata and other possibilities. Governments cant move fast enough on it, because they are held back by a certain section of capable and perceptive people. Governments try and blast the message out through controlled media, but the deception is too unpopular to set the extra taxes and arrange the desired projects. There has been some success, some extra spending and possibility of more if weather seems to get bad, and ice caps seem to melt, it has not been a complete failure in this respect.
The problem with the choosen Greenhouse effect deception is it commercially attacks (in effect) the oil industry.
Why on earth would anyone want to attack the oil industry?
(*perfectly)
whoops
I’m so fortunate that I discovered this blog.
BrianFujisan
30 Mar, 2013 – 1:53 am
Thanks for that list Brian. How could you mis Iraq 2003?
The emerging superpower of China appears to be an angel, relatively speaking. Indeed the BRICS combined too.
Courtenay,
Whatever the detailed concerns expressed, thanks for posting that video. Very interesting indeed. I’m all for anything that increases the quantity of animal livestock, especially those in the wild.
Look at us, we are going to be 10 billion idiots in our Type Zero Global ‘Civiliisation’ soon enough.
And we could destroy ourselves anytime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NPC47qMJVg
O/T
I was commenting in the Independent last night about Swedenâs new Espionage and other illegal intelligence (SOU 2012:95) law and no one seemed to have even heard about it, let alone worked out its relevance to Assangeâs extradition.
Oddly, Wikileaks tweeted about it a short time later (I think WL HQ must track the comments to articles that say Assange has been charged…). At last this worrying development is getting a bit of the attention it deserves â hopefully in time for Swedish Supreme Court Chief Justice Stefan Lindskogâs lecture in Adelaide on 3 April. Lecture title:â”The Assange Affair: freedom of speech and freedom of information, a global perspective”, sponsored by the Swedish Embassy, who clearly are unaware of how it might look to the rest of the world for a judge to be prejudicing himself on a case which may at some point come before his own court!
http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/julian_assange_swedish_judge_view_UKXfH1WonxwgZeaG0XnizI
In light of the seemingly sympathetic tone of Lindskogâs article (and I do take on board that it perhaps signal a shift on Assange in Swedish domestic politics), it will be interesting to see what Lindskog has to say to questions from audience members about this new law criminalising reportage of Swedish/US military ops in Afghanistan (shh! no one mention the Afghan War Logs) that seems almost purpose-designed for Assangeâs onward extradition to the States.
For those who havenât heard about Swedenâs upcoming new âespionageâ legislation, here are the relevant links. If you support the idea of a free press or the value of investigative journalism, these will make your hair stand on end:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.advokatsamfundet.se%2FNyhetsarkiv%2F2013%2FFebruari%2FForstarkt-straffrattsligt-skydd-mot-spioneri%2F
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2Fdebatt%2Fkrigsjournalistik-maste-fa-vara-fri%2F
Frightening stuff from a piddly little country called Sweden.
Where are the young people in their society–why the f*** don’t they stand up and protest? What business does this duckpond have in Afghanistan? Or for that matter anywhere else in the world at all?
Perhaps Lastbluebell will shed some light as to how the young folk of Sweden think of themselves and how they fit into the US’s illegal wars. Or are they simply too cosy and comfortable to care?
These proposed changes to law raise many fundamental questions.
Forgot to thank you Arbed for raising awareness. Keep it up and soldier on!
Thanks for that update, Arbed, this retrospective, dare I say hasty change of Swedish legislation, to fit the case, is rather worrying, but when the new laws specified deal with Swedish particiaption, what does this mean? Is it enough to cooperate with others to be a participant?, can a simple verbal support for a NATO action be construed as participating?
” One can be described foreign espionage and involves a strengthened judicial protection of data about conditions of an international military operation in which Sweden participates. This is because Sweden increased participation in international security and defense cooperation.”
Sweden did not participate in Iraq or the collateral murder by cowards, so what are the particular wiki releases relating to Swedish participation which could possibly be cited?
I thinks its timely to repeat the request made to Ms Nye for an interview at the Ecuadorian embassy would you not say? now that a new prosecutor has been appointed.
What has AA’s new lawyer got to say for herself, has she made any presentation as yet?
Nevermind it’s not just simple verbal support. This gradual integration into NATO has been going for two years. It is quite clear the direction being taken.
http://rt.com/news/sweden-nato-military-protest/
http://rt.com/usa/cia-harroun-us-syrian-064/
@ Crab, A Node and Villagere,
My honest opinion is that there is a lot in the use of free roaming animals to reverse desertifiaction.
On this point:-
” ââŚ. but the claims that desertification may be more responsible for climate change than (still constantly increasing) anthropogenic CO2 are very tenious and made very loosely.”
I am inclined to agree with A Node, but the argument and stats may be more technical than appears at first glance. As a lay person, I may be interpreting his statement in one way, and on closer consideration he may be referencing certain variables and measures that could give credence to his argument.
He did refer to some 10,000 years of hunter-gatherers roaming planet earth. That back drop, lends considerable credence to his overall theory. Our processes of urbanisation and mono-crop agricultural practices and so-called “civilized” living has huge downside for sustainabilty of human existence on planet earth. In a sentence – going back to nature has much to teach humankind.
All in all, I think that the good scientist has something of worth.
It’s an attractive idea and I certainly hope there’s some substance to it. I have to agree with Crab that his TED presentation was a bit vague, promising the Earth (almost literally) whilst offering only anecdotal evidence. However, a 20 minute TED talk is about presenting ideas rather than detailed case notes, so I’m not prepared to condemn him on the strength of it.
Ironically, the idea will meet a lot of resistance because it sounds too good to be true – double the productive land area of the Earth by massively increasing the numbers of our edible livestock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Savory
It sounds promising but the jury’s still out.
Chinese check out
They copied your technology and sold it back to you but when they saw your freedom of speech they copied it to sell you back to religious slavery.
Nevermind,
“Sweden did not participate in Iraq or the collateral murder by cowards, so what are the particular wiki releases relating to Swedish participation which could possibly be cited?”
Three words: Afghan War Diaries.
Here’s a guy does a pretty comprehensive job of demolishing Savory’s theories:
<blockquote"Savory has been around for a very long time preaching the same fallacious grazing gospel, and his name raises curled lips among land management scientists the way Velikovsky's name raises the ire of astronomers. He's merely the latest practitioner of a tradition a couple centuries long of land management mythologies based on wishful thinking that don't turn out to work. A century ago land speculation boosters in the American West claimed that "rain follows the plow"; Savory has merely updated that to "grass follows the cow." "
http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/east-ca/learn-how-to-hate-the-desert-with-ted.html
I ‘ll check into all this later, but right now, I need to go and investigate a barn and 6 DJs till dawn.
Dave @ 12:23 ;
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” Clarke.
That is amazing. How is this not news?
Arbed @ 12:35
Welcome back. This new attempt to rein control over information is the outcropping of Patriot Act; that blank check for Authoritarianism. On 9/11 much ballyhooed was the poor communication between US law enforcement and Security agencies. ‘We didn’t connect the dots’. Pan-cooperative national agencies has now morphed into International, because everyone is convinced it’s in their best interests. What was that discussion 5 centuries ago?
“”What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? … And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you â where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!””
-Sir Thomas More
@ All – it would be interesting to hear views on the BRICS – BRIIICS – AND THE TRADITIONAL (OLD)WORLD ORDER VERSUS WHAT IS CLEARLY EMERGING AS THE NEW WORLD ORDER:-
To my mind, I do not see it feasible to have a continued unilateral and unipolar world within our lifetime. More likely, there will be different and increasingly stronger points of global power â both political and economic â and the traditional Western imperial powers will find power dissipated and/or dwindling over time. This, I suspect will not be an overnight process, but one might rationally ask:-
A. While the US still has the dollar as the worldâs reserve currency â can one continue to print fiat money and distribute it globally, while through military and/or other means continue seeking to compel the whole world to purchase major commodities ( primarily oil) in US dollars?
B. Even with nuclear and military might, there comes a tipping point, as history has shown us, with all Empires previously, when they past their optimum point of sustainable power and enter the period of decline.
C. When the US does overspend beyond its highest point of military expenditures – and literally implodes its economy â ( see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY ) there may either be a rapid (as in the former Soviet Union) US decline â or â the process of reduction and dissipation of a unilateral powerâs global stock of power will be a steady regression and contraction over time. But, if I have, say another 20 or 30 years of life in me â I suspect that I will be witnessing this A,B and C process taking place in the world.
CB
D. âThis is MAJOR NEWS FOLKS IT’S THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW FINANCIAL SYSTEM
E. First it was BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), now itâs BRIIICS (plus Iran and Indonesia).
F. Hereâs a quote.
G. âMuch more important, however, is the BRICS decision to set up a new development bank for long-term infrastructure. This is intended to rival, indeed, outclass, the Western-backed institutions. The underlying rationale is simple: the BRICS are determined to challenge Western political and economic dominance and, in particular, to break the dominance of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which have not served the development needs of poor countries and have generally served only to put them into ever-increasing, un-repayable debt.
H. The BRICS are raising the flag of independence and are telling the West that its abuse of others has gone so far that the others are going to make their own way in life. And that will really matter because more and more Non-Aligned Movement nations will be joining the BRICS in various ways which will particularly include regional, economic, financial, military and technological agreements. An example is that China and Brazil have signed a currency swap deal under which they will be using their own currencies for half of their mutual trade i.e., the US dollar will not be involved. For a while the US dollar can be expected to remain the main trading currency â until suddenly it isnât.â
Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:40AM GMT
By Prof. Rodney Shakespeare
I. The importance of the BRICS summit cannot be overestimated partly because it represents new countries beginning to take power and partly because it heralds a new world coming into being.â
J. Yes, BRIIICS, with three âIâs. Thatâs because to the countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (which have just held a summit in Durban, South Africa) will soon be added Iran and Indonesia.
K. Iran is a stalwart moral and political leader. It stands up against Zionism. It has huge natural resources. It is making extraordinary technological progress. It will soon be a BRIIICS member.
L. And so will Indonesia, which has the worldâs fourth largest population, a fast developing economy (around 7% per year) and, again, huge natural resources.
M. Already, the present BRICS have 40% of the worldâs population, 30% of its land mass, and 25% of its GDP with the latter being a sharply rising figure. Other countries, like Venezuela, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan and Malaysia, are certain to join in.
N. Much more important, however, is the BRICS decision to set up a new development bank for long-term infrastructure. This is intended to rival, indeed, outclass, the Western-backed institutions. The underlying rationale is simple: the BRICS are determined to challenge Western political and economic dominance and, in particular, to break the dominance of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which have not served the development needs of poor countries and have generally served only to put them into ever-increasing, un-repayable debt.
O. All of which is excellent news. The West has exploited emerging and poor countries and everywhere has been financially and militarily aggressive. Put simply, other countries are fed-up with the West: they have had enough.
P. The new bank, however, has more purposes than just being a development bank. American aggression, for example, is ultimately dependent upon the US dollar being the worldâs reserve and main trading currency. The BRICS are going to end that by establishing a new reserve and trading currency.
Q. Indeed, the situation can be put even more clearly. The West has long exploited and oppressed everybody that it could but now the boot, in the traditional metaphor, is on the other foot. Political power is shifting away from the West; economic power is shifting away from the West and its moral authority has almost completely disappeared (torture, assassinations, the creeping genocide of the Palestinians and the deliberate furtherance of a vicious sectarianism have seen to that).
R. Significantly, the BRICS are objecting to sanctions and war threats against Iran and are strongly opposed to Zionist Israel. It will not be long they declare that Israel is a pariah state.
S. Perhaps the most significant outcome of the BRICS summit is the proposed creation of an optic fibre cable linking all five states (with relatively easy extensions to Iran and Indonesia). Indeed, it could be that the BRICS are constructing an independent global optic fibre internet system or at least an extensive one over which they will have complete control. The BRICS are intensely aware that the USA, denying the evidence of its own sixteen intelligence agencies, is pursuing a Zionist agenda against Iran which includes excluding Iran from the SWIFT international banking system and other banking transactions. The new cable should put an end to that.
T. The BRICS are raising the flag of independence and are telling the West that its abuse of others has gone so far that the others are going to make their own way in life. And that will really matter because more and more Non-Aligned Movement nations will be joining the BRICS in various ways which will particularly include regional, economic, financial, military and technological agreements. An example is that China and Brazil have signed a currency swap deal under which they will be using their own currencies for half of their mutual trade i.e., the US dollar will not be involved. For a while the US dollar can be expected to remain the main trading currency â until suddenly it isnât.
U. Furthermore, Africa, for example, long exploited solely for its minerals and resources with no concern for the lives of the inhabitants, is simply going to turn to those who can provide the one big thing that Africa needs â industrialisation.
V. The importance of the BRICS summit cannot be overestimated partly because it represents new countries beginning to take power and partly because it heralds a new world coming into being.
W. However, a new world is not necessarily a better world and the BRICS, becoming the BRIIICS and much more, must be careful not to incorporate, without realising, assumptions and practices stemming from corrupt old Western institutions, thinking and practices. Chief of these is thinking that it does not matter if there is huge rich-poor division. This is at the heart of corrupt Western âtrickle-downâ economics and is a complete breach of fundamental market principle, which says that producers and consumers must be the same people i.e., real productive (and therefore consuming) power must be spread to everyone in society.
X. Another corrupt assumption is that interest is necessary for the spreading of real productive capacity. Interest is not necessary: it is an unnecessary tax imposed by the global financial elite merely for its own benefit. The BRIIICS must ensure that the commercial banks are controlled so that they can only lend their own money (which they can then waste, if they want to, or charge interest on it). But the main money supply, for the spreading of the real economy, must stem, interest-free, from the national bank (although it may be administered by the commercial banks making only a fair administration charge).
Prof. Rodney Shakespeare is a visiting Professor of Binary Economics at Trisakti University, Jakarta, Indonesia. He is a Cambridge MA, a qualified UK Barrister, a co-founder of the Global Justice Movement http://www.globaljusticemovement.net, a member of the Christian Council for Monetary Justice. His main website is http://www.binaryeconomics.net. Shakespeare is also Chair of the Committee Against Torture in Bahrain. More articles by Rodney Shakespeareâ
Comment: Even if one holds fast to a global analysis which divides capital and labour, along a Marxian trajectory plotting the worldâs financial and economic future â this would not negate or deny the basis of the competing tensions between the Western traditional holders of power and the emerging ânew economiesâ as these countries rapidly industrialise and continue to use their new found power on the global stage.
CB
“Wouldn’t it be a nice slap in President Airbags face if Manning won? Please help” (sign petition)
http://normanfinkelstein.com/2013/wouldnt-it-be-a-nice-smack-in-the-face-to-president-airbag-and-his-fellow-warmongers-if-manning-won-please-help/
Courtenay
Surely the main banking villains of the world bank are also in control of BRIIICS.
@ Ben Franklin :
Just so that readers are clear : I take it that the quotation you are offering is not from the writings of Sir Thomas More but from the character Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for all seasons”…..