Jun 242016
 

An open thread, but first a thank you to 10past10 for the blog donation, and Anonymous for the GoFundMe donation. Pretty sure I know who this person is, but your generosity and support is greatly appreciated.

Open threads don’t seem to garner much traffic, but I’ll do this again anyway. I have been desperately trying to gain ranking and traffic with not much success. Either Google is punishing me or the government is or people just don’t have any interest in the topics covered here. I’ve moved onto Facebook as part of this effort. There are additional posts and videos found there that won’t get published here.

I found this interesting, the Humanity Party (see yesterday’s video post).

It’s idealistic of course, but it does speak to a lot of the issues that humanity has been wrestling with. The New Constitution they’re proposing (draft so it’s nothing more then their suggestions) is another matter altogether. I slept on it last night after reading through it quickly and it leaves a lot out, unanswered and some things just not right.

But it’s a start. World leaders have pretty much run the entire planet into the ground from a civilization and environmental standpoint. Irregardless of what may happen to our future habitat, we need to change things and fast.

England’s exit for the European Union will undoubtedly have major effects. Lot’s of turmoil over this one. Maybe the dominoes are starting to fall, but I’m not able to comment much on this.

 Posted by at 7:03 am
Jun 172016
 

Worth watching carefully. The future of food and what is unfolding now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YToMoNPwTFc

Listen to segment 28:57 – 31:12 if you don’t have time for much else.

This is what the video conveys from Professor Battisti with a few comments of my own:

  • We are on track for 930 ppm C02 (business as usual).
  • The ocean will be 3 times more acidic then it is today.
  • Not mentioned in the video (but found elsewhere on this blog) is what this will mean for food from the oceans. 2 billion people depend upon the oceans for their survival. Acidic oceans will lose critical habitat like coral reefs (breeding grounds for fish). By 2050 all food fish are expected to be depleted from the oceans. 90% of the worlds reefs are expected to be dead.

After we stop emitting greenhouse gasses (by some miracle – which I absolutely do not believe will happen under any scenario):

  • Warming will still continue for centuries, so we are not going to get out of this.
  • Sea level rise will continue for many centuries too, inundating coastlines and coastal aquifers. Better, more up-to-date estimates are 20 feet or more by 2100.
  • Some areas will receive 50% less rainfall annually. For reference on what this will mean, the Dust Bowl was only about 7% less annual rainfall. This caused massive levels of migration.

Watch segment 34:50 –

  • During the 1998 – 2001 drought (3 years), Iran lost 80% of its livestock, 35% – 75% reduction in wheat and barley. Afghanistan lost 40% of its livestock, Pakistan 50% and Tajikistan 50% of its grain crops.
  • By the end of the century, similar water stress on agriculture will be the norm throughout the tropics and subtropics due to climate changes associated with increasing C02.

Temperature will have a stupendous impact upon global crop production. The 3-month average temperature increase during the critical growing season will be 3C – 4C degrees. This has been measured before, with France and northern Italy experiencing 36% drop in maize (corn), 30% drop in fodder, 25% drop in fruit harvests and 21% drop in wheat yields.

Similar heat temperature stress is expected to be the norm throughout the tropics and subtropics (resulting in massive starvation and immigration). It will even be too hot to live in France.

The odds of exceeding the world’s “highest temperature every recorded” in summer, wherever you are, is 100%. Since this is the growing season for the world’s food production, this means that food yields will drop dramatically globally. For every degree centigrade, yield is reduced by 10% – 17% (already measured in controlled environments under optimum soil and water conditions). We can expect worse in actual real-life conditions.

If you are beyond optimal temperatures for growing crops, this affects fertility, smaller grains, increasing water stress, increase respiration. Grains also produce decreasing levels of protein as temperature increases (poorer nutrition). Higher temperatures also mean higher disease rates in crops (increase bacteria).

Do the math: 3C – 4C temperature increases means 30% – 40% decrease in crop yields. And it could be worse (4C @15% yield loss = 60% crop yield losses).

The world cannot survive these threats – these temperatures expected mean starvation levels on a scale the world has never, ever experienced.

Mid-latitude regions (like the United States, Europe and Ukraine) will see high volatility in crop yields. At just 2C warming, crop yields drops significantly, and at 4C, crop yields can even drop to as low as zero (0).  Consider this chart and the frequency of losses:

crop yields

For the United States – By 2050 (if warming is just 2C) crop losses of 20% will occur every 2 years, 30% every 5 years. At 3C warming in 2050, 30% losses will occur at least every 3 years.

The bottom line: You cannot do farming like we do today and expect to stay in business. No farmer could withstand these kinds of losses in the United States (or any other similar region) and survive. This means the food production within the United States and the world will take a massive loss in productivity on such a scale that it threatens the survival of mankind.

In addition to heat stress crop losses, the United States, Europe, China is expected to suffer an additional losses of 40% from pests (maize, rice, wheat) which also increase due to temperature. increases.

yield loss

  • In some places, staple crops will have to be abandoned entirely.
  • Monsoons will be more intense, but also shorter, resulting in no second crop. India and Indonesia depend on this for their survival now and will suffer dramatically.
  • More nutrients will be leached from the soil (more intense rainfall on drier soils) resulting in increasingly poorer yields.
  • Climate change will decrease soil organic content and impact soil biodiversity.
  • The only option to avoid this increased volatility and decrease in yield is to create wheat varieties that are designed for the optimal temperatures – but this is something that wheat growers and maize growers around the world have been working for 30 years with no progress. They know about this problem.
  • Increased carbon dioxide will impact plant physiology. This will cause a net loss for plants for food everywhere (globally). The thinking that carbon dioxide is “good” for plants ignores the net loss this will cause.

food insecure

Americans will notice that the United States will be among the nations that are food insecure. They are also my target audience for this blog and I have been issuing these warnings about food safety for years and years. Climate change poses a severe threat to human survival and stability, but it is not temperature that will kill us first – it is the loss of the biosphere (habitat) which cannot adapt quickly enough to survive. We starve to death first as we fight over critical resources like food and water and living space. Immigration and refugees will be absolutely massive and totally uncontrollable.

Things may seem ok right now because you can still go down to the supermarket and purchase what you need, but there is a growing and quite unsolvable threat developing world wide. There is a reason why farmland is being gobbled up all over the globe, as countries try to grapple with the unfolding realities of a hotter world.

The big picture view that we draw from this exercise is disturbing. First of all, the emerging new trend we wrote about in 2008 has continued and become worse. While most countries are not currently experiencing the extreme price hikes in basic foodstuffs that triggered riots from Haiti to Egypt back in 2008, prices remain stubbornly high and access to food is a daily struggle for most people.[3]Today, that situation is compounded by the mounting impacts of climate change. Harvest losses due to extreme weather have become so acute in places like the southern Philippines that farmers are in the streets begging for food and getting killed for it.[4] We now have even more evidence that climate change is caused not just by burning coal and oil for transport and energy, but by the industrial food system itself and the corporate quest for profits that drives its expansion. Indeed, climate change and land grabs are inextricably linked.

This doesn’t all suddenly happen in the year 2100 or in 2050 – it began years ago as temperatures began to climb, increasing volatility, yield, drought and rains. It’s what is driving the refugee crisis in Europe as Middle Eastern nations suffer from drought. It’s what caused the massive die-off of livestock in Mongolia. It’s behind the decline in staple food production in Peru and Vietnam. We can already add the names of every country on Earth that has experienced a decline in productivity and yields. This is a situation that will only worsen.

As McPherson says, “It’s not a problem, it’s a predicament. Problems can be solved, predicaments can’t”. I tend to agree with this assessment. The false hope of hopium and its empty promises has so far proven to be exactly that as the world careens towards disaster. We’ve got a massive, global predicament that appears to be intractable and immutable now. Humanity isn’t prepared.

Are you?

Let me make this clear: I don’t want to spend my last days on Earth hungry. Billions of people will. Most of them are very poor already and there is little they can do about their plight. The world should be stockpiling surplus food right now on a global scale. This will not solve the problem, it will only be to take advantage of the opportunity to do what we can, while we can.

This is a plea for common sense to our global leaders, industry, businesses, families and individuals. Don’t just sit here and wait for hunger to strike at your family. Or in your region, or in your country. This is something that we can do while there is still time. It’s sensible, practical and essential, and it will go a long ways towards ensuring we are not at war with each other for the critical things we need (at least for now and in the near-future).

I’ve shared my thoughts in past blog entries that virtually everything that can be tried, will be tried to stave off our collapse. Ultimately, I agree with this because it’s just not in our nature to give up too easily. Even those that say they accept our inevitable decline and collapse will (and still are) trying. I hope so. We may even get a renewal of our humanity in the process.

 Posted by at 8:36 pm
Jun 152016
 

Read it and weep – for the day draweth nigh: The Great Barrier Reef – Catastrophe Laid Bare

Read the below scientific analysis baring in mind the conservative default. I believe that they all know in their hearts that the reef systems on this planet are doomed to collapse and very soon, taking with it the oceanic incubator that forms the basis of the marine food web, that produces 50% of the human populations protein and 70% of the planets oxygen.

The biosphere of this planet is in dire peril.  In your heart, the readers of this blog knows it. I’m not here to sugar coat anything.

From The Guardian: The Great Barrier Reef – a catastrophe laid bare

 Posted by at 5:54 pm
Jun 152016
 

With a rather ridiculous headlie, Robert Scribbler has lowered the bar of believability once again – “Al Gore’s Revenge — Internal Combustion Engines Stink and This Ridiculously Powerful Electric Turbine Truck Proves It“. I suggest you read it.

Wow. A whole 190 miles between recharges. I’m sure that’s an improvement over current models, but seriously? And ‘tanked fuel’. Hmmm, might that be diesel?

I am seriously underwhelmed. More hopium from the Scribbler who has yet to grasp reality on just how much this really means to our greenhouse gas contributions.

An electrical vehicle powered by a battery that is capable of recharging either through regenerative breaking or a wall socket, the Nikola One is already capable of achieving a zero emissions ride.”

Oh really? And just exactly where did all those materials to build the truck come from? Or the batteries? Or the ‘tanked fuel’? Or the recharging stations?

All this and no emissions? Only if you believe in fantasy fairy tales and winged angels.

“But that’s if truckers are willing to stop every 190 miles for a recharge or to put net zero carbon biofuels into its ‘agnostic’ fuel tank.”

Ah, now we get to the punch-line. Stop every 190 miles… Well, that’s doable, I guess. Pretty short run for a long-haul trucker, but doable, sure. Even I like to get out and stretch my legs, but that is a rather short distance for a freight truck (average distance to transport food is 1500 miles and much further for other kinds of products). Let’s see, that’s approximately 8 stops. This is sure to impact it’s efficiency computations, and how often or not the carbon-emitting biofuels are used. Truckers are paid by the mile, not by the hour. They’re also limited on how long they can drive before mandatory stops and rests. 190 miles doesn’t even figure into this current arrangement, which means what you think it means – hey baby, it’s ‘biofuels’ all the way!

And the recharge? Is that “zero-emissions” too? (Nope). And the supposedly zero-carbon biofuel – is that zero emissions? (Nope). It’s the same with the recharging stations and the electricity they’ve obtained from the grid (or even from ‘alternative energy sources’). None of this stuff is zero emissions.

“In all likelihood, most rigs will be refueled for some time by compressed natural gas stations on many long haul routes.”

Well, we all know (if we’ve been paying attention) that natural gas is anything but zero emissions, so I don’t see how this will qualify any of these claims as being truthful or accurate either.

I love the idea of electric vehicles, but not one of them is zero emissions (and never will be if you do the math). They’re quiet, they don’t emit smelly fumes (when driving, but it’s another story when they’re being manufactured or supplied with replacement parts) and they’re simply fucking cool.

I want one myself. But I don’t have any use for the curved 4k TV Tesla is offering (useless). I could silently cruise down the road secure in my delusional belief that I’m helping the planet while maintaining my lifestyle, never the wise to the horrible truth of what is really occurring. But there aren’t any vehicles that could tackle the roads here and there are certainly no recharging stations anywhere around for hundreds of miles (except at home of course – but what about my fishing trips?).

Is everybody aware that Tesla proposes to consume 100% of the world’s lithium supply? What do you suppose this might mean for other industries that require lithium? Like your cellphone? Or your computer? Or what it might mean for the price of lithium? Competition for this dwindling resource is going to create some big problems.

“Though this system does use a fuel tank (which can be filled with CNG, petroleum, diesel or biofuel) to extend the base electrical range, it represents a huge leap forward in the sustainability of long haul trucking.”

Uh, no – it’s not. Sustainability will actually go down as the raw materials required for these designs depletes and their demand goes up. They’ll be highly dependent upon their technological limitations and availability (just the opposite of sustainability). And none of these ‘fuels’ are zero-emissions. They’re all carbon sourced, carbon emitting fuels.

But still, I love the idea of electric vehicles. I just don’t endorse the hype, propaganda and incessant brainwashing on how great they are or how much they’re going to help our greenhouse gas problem much. In fact, there is evidence that the greenhouse gasses emitted are going to go up instead of down.

“If we’re going to tackle climate change, we need to address both long haul trucking and aircraft based fossil fuel emissions.”

Yes, we should. But let’s have some honesty about this, shall we?

The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the sector. The remainder of greenhouse gas emissions comes from other modes of transportation, including freight trucks, commercial aircraft, ships, boats, and trains as well as pipelines and lubricants. (Transportation Sector Emissions)

The larger greenhouse gas problem with transportation is personal vehicles. Tesla’s working on that too, but it’s still unaffordable for most people. Electric freight trucks are a breakthrough for certain, but they’re not going to save the planet.

Vehicle emissions from all sources contributes less to climate change then oopselectricity generation and agriculture (see quote below). So how does this “work” with those recharging stations envisioned every 190 miles? Anybody want to do the math on this one? How many thousands of recharging stations does this actually represent? And what is that going to take in terms of resources and their contribution to emissions?

Tesla is only planning on 55 natural gas fill-up stations by the way (for the entire country) and claiming that these will provide for “millions of gallons of clean natural gas each day.” Liars. Isn’t there a place in hell for such people?

So let me get this straight… A electric vehicle company is going to promote natural gas consumption? And call it clean? Are they by chance involved in the horrible fracking activity going on around the country? I don’t even want to look. Perhaps the good news is Tesla’s only actually received $10 million (not the $2.3 billion claimed). Now you know why I didn’t post a picture with this blog entry – the thing doesn’t even exist. But hey, I still like the idea of electric transportation. I don’t want to see them fail. But I’d also like to have the truth about what they’re offering really means. It’s not a solution and it’s not much of a step in the right direction either.

So what about the claim that transportation contributes to our greenhouse gasses?

(Transportation Sector Emissions) – In 2014, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation accounted for about 26% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the second largest contributor of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions after the Electricity sector.

(Electricty Sector Emissions) – 27% of electricity generated in 2014 was generated using natural gas. Petroleum accounts for approximately 1% of electricity generation. The remaining generation comes from nuclear (about 19%) and renewable sources (about 13%), which includes hydroelectricity, biomass, wind, and solar.

I’ll try and spell it out for you. A ‘zero-emissions’ truck (which isn’t) running on lithium batteries (also not zero emissions) which must be recharged every 190 miles, or using ‘zero-carbon biofuels’ (which aren’t) is supposed to make a substantial difference on human-contribution to greenhouse gasses and global warming (it won’t). But hey, it’s a start – I guess.

Actually, we could do better. We could change the entire paradigm of how we live and how we transport stuff and how much we make and what we demand, and hey! We could even grow some of our own food as part of this new paradigm. But this sort of conversation is rarely in the public space and even rarer among authors and publishers, let alone industry or government. And we sure as hell don’t want to discuss things like population or what sustainability really means… no, we’d rather endorse a war criminal and do everything we can to maintain the status quo while pretending everything is going to be honky dory based on vaporware and empty promises. Pardon me while I puke.

Maybe this really will be “Al Gore’s Revenge” when we all finally start to listen to what the Earth has been telling us for decades and stop paying attention to all the hype and propaganda and phony ‘solutions’ we’re constantly being promised.

But probably not. Hopium is simply easier to accept then face reality. What we’re far more likely to get, no – what we are absolutely certain to receive is Gaia’s Revenge (James Lovelock) as the Earth totters towards the total collapse of the biosphere while we continue to dither around embracing our failed paradigms. Our insistence of “business as usual” is our death sentence.

I wish I didn’t have to write article like this. I wish we could all get on board with reality. I wish that people would wake the fuck up and realize just how deceptive many media sources really are. But I rarely ever get anything I wish for. I rarely even get a thank you. But I don’t care anymore, I’ve got nothing left to lose that I haven’t already lost.

Be careful with what you read these daze. Glassy-eyed hopium isn’t the new crack, it’s the same old crap shoveled since the human ape stood upright and formed a coherent sentence.

 Posted by at 5:45 pm
Jun 102016
 

The (s)Election fraud of 2016 is well underway. Perhaps you are aware of this, perhaps not. But it will have a huge impact on the next 4 – 8 years in America and on the world.

The list of crimes uncovered so far is quite extensive, affecting tens of millions of voters, including closed polls, missing ballots, missing registrations, wrong ballots, broken machines, miscounts, no paper trail, skewed search results and exit polls and even the media calling the Democratic nomination a entire day ahead of important primaries when nobody had even voted. There is also the superdelagates who decided on their vote as much as 10 months in advance, disenfranchising and nullifying the efforts of tens of millions of voters in the Democratic campaign.

Even Google got in on the action of (s)Election fraud, restricting its search results to hide disfavorable results such as “crime” and “indictment” with the term “Hillary”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg

Broken machines, incomplete voter rolls weren’t the only problems reporter, but one of the most shocking was how the media called the nomination for Hillary Clinton a day before the polls even opened in California with millions and millions of voters being deceived.

How 107 Superdelegates Robbed 11 Million Democratic Voters

But the most egregious violation of voting rights of all is the super delegate system setup by the Democratic Party – a system which ensures the party that they can forcefully dictate who the Democrat nominee is (your vote does not count). By now, everyone knows that Hillary was ‘declared the winner’ in California, but that isn’t what happened since most votes for Bernie Sanders weren’t even counted.

Hillary Clinton Favored By Election Fraud In Democratic Primaries: Federal Lawsuite Filed Against Officials To Protect California Primaries

Greg Palast has penned an article depicting the (s)Election fraud, revealing the ridiculous and hidden “rules” required for No Party Preference voters.

Many CA Independent Voters Left Out Of Presidential Primary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofB3QMbPu60

Voter Fraud Probe In California Turns Into Voter Intimidation Boondoggle

Recommended Reading: Election Fraud Mega Edition. There are a bunch of important links to (s)Election fraud articles here, so be sure to read. And be sure to read this: Hillary Clinton and Election Fraud if you don’t have time for anything else.

The Democratic nomination is not yet over, not until July. But there are still reports coming of voter fraud in other states.

Voter Fraud Exposed In New York Primary! Whoa…

It is the sheer consistency and scale of the reported problems and clear manipulation that brings the (s)Election 2016 into severe doubt. Not every report is necessarily accurate, but there are just far too many oddities, omissions, misrepresentations and reported problems to believe for even one second that (s)Election 2016 is fair.

According to Real Clear Politics Clinton eventually received 212,550 votes in Kentucky to Bernie Sanders’ 210,626 votes for a difference of only 1,924 votes.  The 4,000 vote discrepancy gave Clinton the Primary.

I am quite confident that these reports will continue through November and beyond as voters, workers and officials report on their observations. But it’s already too late for Americans, something that many people claimed early on – the “fix is in”.

As of today, Friday June 10th, 2016 – Hillary Clinton does NOT have the required number of votes to claim the nomination. The media has counted the superdelegate ‘votes’ (by telephone) which have NOT been cast yet. Their actual votes happens in July. They can vote for whoever they want – they do NOT have to vote according to how their state voted and they can certainly change their minds between now and then. Clinton’s supposed nomination relies upon the superdelegates defying their state’s voters (and they already have). This is as clear a case of voter fraud and misrepresentation as there can ever be.

Consider these facts and the dishonesty of the superdelegate process:

  • In Utah, where Sanders won by a 79-20 margin, two of the state’s four superdelegates are backing Clinton.
  • 11 of 16 superdelegates in Minnesota are supporting Clinton, even though Sanders won the state’s March 1 caucus by a 62-38 margin.
  • While Sanders blew Clinton out of the water by a 73-27 margin in Washington State, Clinton has 10 of 16 superdelegates. Sanders has zero.
  • Six of Wisconsin’s ten superdelegates are supporting Clinton, while only one is backing Sanders. The Vermont senator won the Badger State’s primary by 14 points.
  • All nine superdelegates in Rhode Island have committed to supporting Hillary Clinton, even though Bernie Sanders defeated the former Secretary of State by a 12-point margin.
  • Sanders also has only one superdelegate in Alaska, same as Clinton, even after winning the state by an 82-18 margin. One Alaska superdelegate backing Clinton patronized and belittled a Sanders supporter who asked her to cast her superdelegate vote with how her state’s residents voted.

Must watch (seriously, watch this to see how manipulative and deceptive the mainstream media really is)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecHE2o9PlhM

The fact is, no matter who wins the (s)Election 2016 in November, even if it was ‘your’ candidate (Hillary, Bernie, Trump, Bidden or whoever), (s)Election 2016 is a fraud, a sham from the get-go. Which means that the eventual ‘winner’, whoever it winds up being, isn’t your President.

The people behind all of this are earnestly trying to execute a coup in the United States – and so far, they’re getting away with it. They will be challenged, but like past (s)Elections, there is a good chance these efforts will be ignored, delayed or derailed and the candidate will be ‘installed’ as President as planned. Since this entire (s)Election is fraudulent, this person will not be duly and fairly elected, and therefore, not my President and not yours either.

nominee

It goes without saying that the fraud is being skewed almost exclusively in favor of Hillary Clinton. President Obama has now endorsed Clinton which makes him complicit in this fraud. But this is not the will of the American people, and unless we stand up against this, they’re going to get away with it.

 Posted by at 11:30 pm
Jun 082016
 

I found these videos below over on sunweber’s blog and realized that they would ‘say a lot’ about the unsustainable cost of alternative energy. Youtube has a ton more videos on the same topic if you’re interested in researching this further. I’d like you to pay attention to the factory processing and methods and inherent energy requirements to produce these solar powered components as you contemplate what this really means for our energy future.

Alternative energy sources and technology are often treated like a panacea for the world’s energy problems. The truth is very different. Alternative energy creates as many problems as it alleges to cure, but this inquiry is often deflected. This is dishonest, but very common.

I’m not against alternative energy myself, and rather like the idea, and I’m definitely for less use of petroleum products worldwide, but I don’t agree with the proponents of alternative energy that these technologies are sustainable, non-polluting or emissions free. These claims are simply false and are a part of the false meme that surrounds alternative energy (false narrative). In many cases, they can create even more of these problems then they attempt to solve.

Solar panels in front of wind energy plants and wheat field

Alternative energy technologies are really nothing more then ‘collection devices’. They are not energy sources themselves. As such, they do not store the energy they collect very well, and what energy they do collect has a very low density. Solar panels have achieved higher and higher levels of efficiency but still rely upon energy storage devices to make them more usable. This poses some particular problems and issues that also aren’t sustainable, non-polluting or emissions free. At every stage of the alternative energy lifecyle, from conception through production, these same issues continue to occur.

Alternative energy technologies are not green (read the entire article). “The production of solar cells has become more energy-intensive, resulting in longer energy payback times and higher greenhouse gas emissions. ” The paper explains why, and what can be done about it, but the simpler explanation to always keep in mind is simply this: The production of electricity by technology is never carbon free or truly sustainable. The further we recede from stored energy sources, the more difficult this all becomes.

Many life cycle analyses (LCAs) of solar PV systems have a positive bias so one has to be very careful about the ‘spin’ that is being promoted. Tesla (the car company) is building a giant battery factory in Nevada that will consume 100% of the world’s supply of lithium for its batteries. Sustainable? Hardly, but this only scratches the surface of the real story, what is mined, processed, machined, distributed and installed around the world and its true cost on resources, environmental pollution and of course, the carbon emissions emitted at every stage. And you may never read about the petroleum that was used to perform all this activity, but it’s certainly there.

If the world ever does widely embrace alternative energy, it needs to do so with eyes (and minds) wide open to their realities, limitations, lifespans, resource demands, impacts and costs, to include costs to the environment and how and where we might be able to best use them. They are not an end-all solution, they’re still very dependent upon petroleum energy for their production and maintenance and there is more then a little doubt we will even have the rare materials to continue to manufacture them beyond another 20 or 30 years from today.

This latter point poses a huge question – Are we setting our civilization up for failure, just like we did with petroleum energy? Have we truly counted the total costs and understood the full implications of these impacts? I don’t think so. Perpetuating growth, business and the status-quo is the hidden goals here by this switch to ‘alternatives’ vs. choosing to address the inherent problems they bring and even worse, deceiving ourselves that we’ve achieved zero-emissions energy.  If we leap forward as many suggest and then belatedly discover that alternative energy has only let us down or perpetuated the issues it was supposed to solve for us, then what? That is a question worth asking.

Related: Civilization Is Not Carbon Neutral and Never Will Be

Watch the videos, they’re interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAufbqbUS6k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJcHMmkjlA4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa6KEwWY9HU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa6KEwWY9HU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiGlq7408ME

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk_CB8K1lTQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9WsEVEOWfU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2hjv6FS67g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAiCiFD-Rjg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwu5KPVv54

 Posted by at 7:34 pm
Jun 072016
 

Ok, this posts fits right in the Real Narrative points I was raising in my last blog entry.

Please read Journalistic Malpractic.

The evidence is clear, the media is manipulating the (s)Election in favor of Hillary. But this is more then just media manipulation, the media is disenfranchising hundreds of millions of Americans who haven’t even voted yet.

If you can’t read the article (you should) here are the highlights that are important:

The media has already claimed that Hillary Clinton has won the Democratic nomination. This is NOT true. The super delegates haven’t even voted yet and won’t until July 25th – over a month away.

Hillary only has 1812 delegates, Sanders has 1521. That is not enough for EITHER candidate to win yet. We don’t know the winner until July 25th! But the media has already declared their anointed Queen Hillary to be the nominee.

This is unconscionable.

Tonight, we will learn what this Tuesdays primaries results will be – but it STILL doesn’t mean the (s)Election is over. The article link above was published only yesterday (Monday in case you’re drunk or stoned or simply don’t give a shit) and there were no primaries yesterday, but that didn’t stop the lying, manipulative and dishonest media from making their coronation.

For years I have pointed out that the American (s)Elections are a SHAM and (s)Election 2016 is proving this point many times over.

Pledged delegates
Clinton: 1,812
Sanders: 1,521

Superdelegates
Clinton: 571
Sanders: 48

“Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates, who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before any other candidate was in the race.”

WTF??? 10 months? How can a delegate claim they are fairly representing their voters when their voters haven’t even voted yet but their vote “has been decided” 10 months in advance?

The media’s complicity and outright coronation of their choice of nominee is absolutely disgusting – and outrageous. America – you are all witnesses to another stolen (s)Election.

The media has fabricated a story, a false narrative that intentionally deprives Americans of their choice of nominee. And so far, they’re getting away with it.

 

 

 Posted by at 6:49 pm
Jun 052016
 

I’ve been harping on the ‘false narrative’ off and on for a while now. But what is a false narrative?

A narrative is a story – and like most stories it contains a cast of characters, events, circumstances and a story line. Events that either will (future tense) or have (past tense) taken place. But like all stories, a narrative isn’t the real thing (real life). It’s fiction, the ‘telling‘ of the parts of the story the author wants to share.

The false narrative is a combination of these fictions and non-fictions, truth and deception, inaccuracies or omissions in the story, but it is not the real thing. A narrative is almost always passed off as the real thing, and almost as often, accepted as the real thing, but this isn’t true. A narrative is the ‘telling’ – and a false narrative is also the ‘telling’ inaccurately (omissions). Continue reading »

 Posted by at 4:07 pm
Jun 052016
 

Posted, but worth making a separate entry here: New Study Predicts an Intolerably Hot World

Not the best article and some really inaccurate statements. I suspect the editors refused to allow the real facts to be accurately published. There are numerous dishonest claims here. Listed in order as shown in the article:

  • a) There will be no great grandchildren (for most of us) as humans will be gone by the time frames claimed (read on).
  • b) 6.4 to 9.5 degrees Celsius are unsurvivable temperatures (for anything living), vastly exceeding survivable wet-bulb temperatures. 1 degree Celsius increases atmospheric moisture by 7% (massive storms on a scale not even imaginable). So temperatures are too hot to survive and nothing will due to heat, rain, storms and even drought. We are already seeing extremely dangerous temperatures exceeding survival rates in India right now (long before 2300).
  • c) Sea level trajectories are already over 21 feet by 2100. Far above what this article claims, which means most low-lying coastal cities will be flooded creating over a billion refugees.
  • d) Food supplies will be more then “disrupted”, there won’t be any. Starvation on a global scale will come first before heat-stroke and death by thirst. This is happening now, with 72 million in Africa facing starvation by December (this year) according to published reports.
  • e) The methane hydrate problem is seriously glossed over. A major “methane pulse” to the atmosphere is expected at any time and there are already indications that this is now underway with a dramatic jump in methane levels.
  • f) Climate refugees already number over 100 million (today) and will exceed over 3 billion by 2050, a far greater number then claimed in the article.
  • g) Temperature increases would indeed ‘flatten-out’ over time – on the scale of thousands of years. We don’t have the kind of time left.
  • h) 2015 – 2016 has seen a very dramatic jump in temperature, which now appears to be non-linear, meaning it will acclerate faster and faster by all indications, making these time-frames claimed erroneous at best and disingenuous at worst.
  • i) There is virtually no chance now of “limiting warming” within human lifetimes. Warming is accelerating now beyond human emissions and feed backs due to nature sources now becoming emitters, including such things as albedo feedback (no ice). A blue-ocean event in the Arctic may happens as early as this year (September time frame). This will dramatically increase warming in the Arctic and sets the stage for runaway feed backs, including permafrost melting and methane from organic soils.
  • j) Alternative energy is not-carbon free and studies have shown that it can actually increase emissions. Nor does alternative energy supply enough for human needs, but it does deplete critical and non-replaceable resources and has a very limited time replacement life span on the order of just a few decades. We do not have enough raw materials to continue to replace what is needed while trying to meet increasing needs.
  • k) Carbon fees don’t accomplish anything other then making some richer. All economic activity by any source creates carbon emissions. Money cannot solve climate change, this is a triggered physical process that is now beyond our assumptions of control.
  • l) The many assumptions and claims in this article are intended to persuade readers that we are not in a planetary emergency and what more scientist now believe is an extinction level event (ours). It is well known that a 6th “great extinction” is now underway globally, but the question still be grappled with is “does it include us?” and the evidence says decidedly yes. We have only a few decades at most in order to survive on this planet as temperatures, droughts, extreme weather, starvation and devastation will wipe out life on this planet. This is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced and the evidence has been published in many places including on this blog.
 Posted by at 12:41 pm