And Yet It Works! Bizzare News For The Planet Tech

Lies, Damned Lies, And The Truth

The fish came back

The mainstream media are the worst liars of all

Right here’s some dialog on a Wholesome Local weather group dialogue that reveals how simply completely un-natural Nature may be.

What follows is reduce and pasted from some current Wholesome Local weather Google group correspondence that helps to inform the actual story of my work and the way the reality has been trodden upon ruthlessly by The Journal Nature, mainstream media, and social media for six years.  This story begins with a publish by Robert Tulip (a pal certainly, although we have now by no means met). There’s a good bit right here concerning the true authorized standing of my know-how by authorized professional Peter Jenkins. Each level out, chapter and verse, the scurrilous and defamatory nature of Nature.

The price of the intentional pernicious promulgation of lies over fact comes with devastating worsening of the worldwide envrionmental disaster of local weather change and ocean collapse. The rationale? Comply with the cash.

My response on this menace is on the finish of the thread.

***************

On Solar, Jun three, 2018 at eight:18 AM, Robert Tulip wrote:

Pricey HCA (Wholesome Local weather Alliance)

The talk about local weather restoration is constrained by unclarity and errors in broader public coverage discussions on local weather change. For example this main drawback, I’ve written this evaluate of a Remark piece simply revealed by the distinguished science journal Nature. I might welcome any suggestion on sharing this additional if the questions I increase show legitimate.

Errors to confuse

The Nature Remark, Worldwide Regulation Poses Issues For Destructive Emissions Analysis (June 2018), presents a superb abstract of present official and mainstream scientific interested by carbon removing and implicitly about local weather restoration. Whereas presenting some sound factors, the Remark mixes these with the error and confusion that sadly at present dominate dialogue on local weather coverage. Going by means of these issues systematically is nicely value whereas.

The opening sentence claims that Carbon Dioxide Removing actions are “aimed toward attaining a internet discount in GHG emissions.” That’s merely mistaken, and must be corrected by Nature. CDR is totally separate from emission discount, aiming solely to take away carbon already within the air and sea. The paper’s assertion misses this primary conceptual distinction between carbon removing, coping with previous emissions, and emission discount, slowing the speed of future emissions. It’s shocking that Nature’s assessment course of might miss such a mistake, however sadly that failure displays the confused state of local weather politics.

The subsequent sentence within the Nature Remark is equally fallacious, arguing that “a path of speedy decarbonisation may nonetheless obtain the Paris Settlement’s goal.” The very fact is that decarbonisation can solely scale back future emissions, an consequence that falls nicely in need of attaining warming targets, which shall be missed until already accrued carbon is eliminated, at a lot bigger scale even than the deceptive idea of internet zero emissions.

Enterprise as normal

At current, Enterprise As Normal would ship emissions of about 60 GT CO2e in 2030, and all of the decarbonisation agreements of Paris would reduce that annual emission determine by lower than 10%, to about 55 GT addition of CO2e per yr, in line with this graph taken from the New York Occasions. I ought to observe, numerous sources give totally different numbers, in accordance with whether or not CO2, CO2e or carbon is measured, with projections altering over time. The shortage of readability within the Paris totals is a part of the political problem and raises questions why these headline international numbers have been so buried.

The Paris decarbonisation path is massively in need of attaining its warming targets, leaving apart the huge political battle towards the fossil gasoline business that the decarbonisation program would first need to win. The truth is that decarbonisation can solely obtain the Paris warming targets if augmented, certainly vastly outweighed, by CDR.

Lies

The Nature Remark continues its false evaluation by describing reliance on carbon removing as “a dangerous technique”. Within the context the place international warming poses large dangers, the dangers of eradicating carbon are far decrease than the dangers of not doing so, and actually are essential dangers. Each technique has challenges, however the ‘emission discount alone’ technique advocated by some is vastly extra dangerous than CDR. So the danger evaluation on this Remark is misconceived.

Then, in talking of whether or not analysis is “socially acceptable”, the Remark makes an extra failure to match this alleged social danger towards actual danger projections of local weather change corresponding to sea degree rise, pressured migration, Arctic melting, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss and coral bleaching. These ought to all be socially unacceptable on far vaster scale than small scientific trials. CDR know-how deployment can mitigate these dangers if validated by lab and subject trials. Beneath any coherent moral compass, CDR must be much more socially acceptable than the impacts of worldwide warming. CDR includes solely scientific analysis packages focused at stopping these extreme actual issues, and must be supported by governments, towards these false claims of extreme danger. Calling reliance on carbon removing dangerous performs into the political arms of those that are against local weather restoration.

Damned lies

All this Nature Remark damaging and false evaluation is then moderated barely by a welcome name for direct public engagement with CDR analysis, though the undertone appears to be that the primary public engagement might show hostile.

It’s true that some CDR proposals carry organic dangers, however once more, the Nature Remark doesn’t adequately set organic dangers towards the counterfactual of what is going to occur with out CDR, or the capability for nicely managed scientific trials to evaluate these dangers. It might be that BECCS will fail due to prices and agricultural displacement. On the SRM aspect, Photo voltaic Aerosol Injection might show solely a stopgap to sluggish sea degree rise. The one solution to correctly assess these elements is thru properly managed scientific subject trials and incremental deployment. Scaremongering about dangers is extra a political than a scientific strategy.

The assertion on this Nature Remark that I discovered most essential to debate is that “it’s essential that governance preparations proceed to emphasize the necessity to drastically mitigate CO2 emissions.” I recognise that is seen as motherhood orthodoxy amongst local weather coverage makers, however given the numbers talked about above, displaying that each one Paris pledges can solely sluggish the CO2 improve by 10% at greatest, this allegedly “essential” proposition must be on the desk as one thing needing evidentiary evaluation, together with of its alternative value. It shouldn’t merely be said as reality, because it begs the query of whether or not different methods, particularly speedy ramp up of carbon removing, might be a much better, faster and cheaper strategy to ship local weather stability and restoration.

The subsequent baseless assertion within the Nature Remark is that “all conceivable CDR choices immediately might offset solely a few third of emissions.” The authors have to be unaware of outstanding CDR dialogue, resembling introduced by the distinguished Australian scientist Dr Timothy Flannery in his current ebook Daylight and Seaweed that algae forests on 9% of the world ocean might offset all emissions. Flannery’s argument, based mostly on peer reviewed work by Ocean Foresters, simply refutes their declare. Equally, a current scientific paper on Iron Salt Aerosol signifies conceivable paths to offset all emissions. Maybe they need to dismiss such evaluation as inconceivable, however that may contain what is known as the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. In the event that they assume these papers are inconceivable, the right path is to interact with proof, to not make groundless political statements implying such work doesn’t even exist.

Persevering with after this litany of errors, the Nature Remark then makes an obvious U-turn by saying analysis on carbon removing is pressing, together with area exams. In the event that they assume that, it might assist their case in the event that they acquired the information and strategic context proper within the first place. It appears they’re making an attempt to curry favour with hostile critics by hedging this advocacy for area exams with unwarranted statements of help for local weather orthodoxy.

Subsequent, the primary danger of not getting underway with CDR is described, considerably confusingly, as undermining the expectation that CDR capability can be out there by 2030. The extra necessary actuality is that CDR and SRM analysis is required proper now to deal with the acute dangers of worldwide warming and acidification, and shouldn’t be handled on this relaxed method simply as attainable fall-backs if emission discount fails after the subsequent decade.

Subsequent, the Remark wrongly calls it an “advance” that the 2010 choice of the UN Conference on Organic Variety sought “to ban geoengineering actions which will negatively impression biodiversity.” Removed from an advance, this UN determination was a dangerous backward step, which my studying suggests was designed primarily to safeguard the UN ideology of “solely emission discount”, opposite to its claims of being motivated by environmental concern. The backward angle was then strengthened in 2013 by the London Conference on Dumping Waste at Sea, with its caricature of great efforts to repair the local weather as “dumping waste”.

Correcting the lies with truths

Subsequent, the Nature Remark seems to mis-characterise the Ocean Iron Fertilization experiment run by Russ George, with out naming him or the Haida Salmon Restoration Company. First, they allege this experiment was “aimed toward creating emission discount credit”. That may be a partial declare, distorting the target in keeping with a lot of the uninformed and biased criticism this undertaking has confronted. Russ George has stated the primary purpose was to convey again the fish, restoring biodiversity, and that carbon credit have been solely ever a secondary issue. Second, the Nature Remark says “there have been no recognized scientific ocean iron fertilization subject exams since 2009”, apparently dismissing the Haida 2012 OIF check as unscientific.

The extraordinary scandal across the Haida OIF check is defined on this three Might 2018 interview with The Ecologist. Whereas there could also be some errors in that interview, it does plausibly say, rebutting hostile claims that there was no official authorities or scientific engagement, that the Haida Salmon Restoration challenge was “funded by the Canadian Federal Authorities… with the help of the Canadian Nationwide Analysis Basis, who was paying for 50% of the science prices.” Illustrating the poisonous politics of local weather change, it says “George’s collected scientific knowledge was destroyed underneath Canadian federal warrant earlier than the experiment could possibly be accomplished for evaluation.” Maybe this knowledge destruction by police helps clarify why the Nature Remark doesn’t embrace this 2012 experiment amongst its listing of scientific trials of OIF?

There are grounds to query the Nature paper’s assertion that the London Protocol “guidelines have been primarily developed with environmental safety in thoughts.” It seems extra believable that these guidelines have been developed to ship a chilling sign about Ocean Iron Fertilization, no matter environmental safety, and have been as an alternative focussed extra on the unspoken political view that emission discount is the one recreation on the town and that geoengineering subject work presents a critical problem to the emission discount paradigm for local weather coverage.

Nature has beforehand revealed mistaken claims concerning the biodiversity impression of the Haida trial, so this Remark continues that political line. Final yr, Nature said “scientists have seen no proof that the experiment labored”, a blatantly political rejection of the proof concerning the salmon growth brought on by this trial.

Regardless of all these complaints, I welcome this Nature Remark, since its assumptions look like extensively accepted, and the chance to query them is a useful method to assist discover out the details about carbon removing potential. If any of my evaluation above is fallacious I might welcome correction.

My very own work in CDR is focussed on Iron Salt Aerosol. Our discussions point out that regardless of the robust scientific framework for this analysis, most of the pervasive political errors featured by Nature will proceed to hinder progress in local weather restoration.

Robert Tulip

***************

The true authorized standing

From: healthy-climate-alliance@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of peter jenkins
Despatched: Sunday, June three, 2018 9:48 PM
To: Robert Tulip <robert@……..
Cc: Wholesome Local weather Alliance
Topic: Re: [HCA] Nature Touch upon Carbon Removing

Robert, thanks for placing your evaluation out for remark relating to the Brent et al. article on the worldwide authorized regime. Lots of your factual corrections appear spot on – and useful to tell these new to those debates. I don’t know the small print of the Haida challenge that you simply handle close to the top, and chances are you’ll be absolutely right in your observations, however that part of your evaluate seems much less goal and extra emotional than the sooner sections, thus much less useful. Chances are you’ll need to contemplate taking out phrases within the Haida undertaking part like “extraordinary scandal,” “poisonous politics,” “chilling sign,” and “blatantly political.” Readers like me who will not be acquainted with the (now-dated) Haida challenge particulars could also be turned off by this accusatory language in distinction to your extra factual tone earlier on.

Authorized clarifications

Listed here are some clarifications on the Worldwide regulation regimes mentioned by Brent et al. (I’m a lawyer and have executed some worldwide regulation advocacy work): The Conference on Organic Variety’s (CBD) suggestions on geoengineering to its member nations are simply that: suggestions. Nothing in any of the CBD selections Brent et al. listing is binding or enforceable regulation, though it nonetheless has some “tender regulation” drive as a press release of the coverage preferences of the worldwide group. Brent et al. confusingly repeatedly discuss with it as a “prohibition,” whereas additionally acknowledging “it’s non-binding.” That’s like saying one is prohibited from operating a Cease signal however it’s non-binding. Until enforceable, statements of preferences by the CBD (a really weak, largely advisory, treaty) don’t truly prohibit anybody from doing something.

On the London Protocol, the allegedly “legally binding” 2013 choice, which is referenced by Brent et al. on the second web page of their piece, as they notice: “..is but to return into impact.” Underneath that Protocol, it seems such selections have to be accepted by 2/3rds of the contracting events and the 2013 determination nonetheless has not been (see Ginzky and Frost article, footnote three, https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cclr2014&div=18&id=&page= .)
Whereas it might but be accepted and turn into binding, it isn’t now — simply as a invoice within the USA handed by the Congress doesn’t grow to be regulation until signed by the President. So once more, the London Protocol choice just isn’t a prohibition.

Though for my part unlucky, readers additionally must be conscious that the USA shouldn’t be a celebration to both the CBD or the London Protocol (on the previous, notoriously the U.S. is the one non-party nation on the planet to the CBD, as can also be the case with the equally weak, non-binding, Paris Local weather Accord, per Pres. Trump’s withdrawal one yr in the past; for extra on the US and the complicated London Protocol state of affairs, see the EPA’s explanatory webpage: https://www.epa.gov/ocean-dumping/ocean-dumping-international-treaties#US%20LC%20Contracting%20Party ).

So, as a sensible matter, such local weather experiments carried out within the U.S. now wouldn’t run afoul of any U.S. or worldwide regulation place. Such experiments nonetheless very probably would run into complicated U.S. Federal and/or State regulation necessities, however that might rely upon the situation and circumstances of the experiment.

– Peter Jenkins, Biopolicy Consulting
www.biopolicyconsulting.com

*****************

My response

From: Russ
Despatched: Monday, June four, 2018 6:09 AM
To: ‘peter jenkins’ <jenkinsbiopolicy@…
Topic: RE: [HCA] Nature Touch upon Carbon Removing – the entire fact and nothing however the fact

My because of Robert and others for serving to to current the reality concerning the infinite heinous lies and defamation by the Journal Nature. Nature has recognized for years that my Haida Salmon Restoration Company venture was rigorously and correctly deliberate and carried out with the complete participation and approval of the Canadian, British Columbia, Native, and Native governments. The work planning the challenge took greater than 5 years.

Years of dutiful and cautious planning

Throughout these years of planning, each 90 days, particulars of the work on the enterprise and scientific plan was dutifully filed within the quarterly reviews the federal government of Canada required the Native authorities to file. Numerous conferences and much more correspondence stands as witness to the trustworthy, trustworthy, earnest, sound scientific and enterprise planning of the trouble. The Journal Nature has been absolutely conscious of those information for years, but they publish the other.

The federal government(s) of Canada thought so extremely of the scientific and marketing strategy to ‘convey again the fish’ that they offered providers and amenities of a minimum of 6 federal ministries to help within the years of planning course of and the ocean experiment itself. The very very first thing the federal government of Canada did was assign prime authorized specialists to think about the legality and the results of that was primarily equivalent to what has been made clear within the correspondance copied right here. Ask your self why are the lies about this work being ‘towards the regulation’ persevering with with Nature probably the most infamous liars, who income from such lies?

As for ‘proper and correct science’ the Nationwide Analysis Council of Canada paid for 50% of the salaries and prices of nearly all of the scientific staff which they required the ultimate say in approving these employed for that work.  The  undertaking was moreover permitted following an almost 2 yr vetting course of for federal Financial Analysis and Improvement funding equal to 41% of the bills. Additional a Canadian federal authorities financial institution assure for challenge capital finance wants was offered after greater than a yr of vetting. The Canadian export improvement company offered a Canadian sovereign assure to the enterprise, the record of the true information that testify to the enterprise going ahead exactly to the letter of the regulation goes on and on. Oh, and don’t overlook the general public conferences that have been required by the federal government of Canada to be held greater than a yr prematurely of the group setting to sea, in order that the general public might ask any and all questions and recieve trustworthy solutions to these questions. however hey who cares about due course of, definitely not the Journal Nature.

It Simply Works

The most important catch of salmon in all of historical past resulted. – CLICK TO READ MORE

What we noticed following the success of the excellent science and persevering with to this present day some 6 years later is the decided and contninuing lies, damned lies, and defamation of the individuals and the work and the success of the venture by noone aside from the distinguished mainstream media, New York Occasions, Scientific American, Guardian, Nature, the listing is countless.

Life with out ardour just isn’t life in any respect

As to the admonition of Peter within the content material about who worries about feelings, I’m wondering what kind of ‘unemotional’ extra ‘goal’ response to the devastating lies promoted and sustained for years by the so-called inexperienced and scientific communities, which might be intent on falsifying historical past to this present day, is acceptable. The reality and historical past of my Haida Salmon Restoration enterprise all turns into clear within the identify I and my native companions selected for the enterprise, it was abgout bringing again the fish ‘salmon restoration’.

It will appear that many are uncomfortable with the reality and suggest that with their statements corresponding to “I don’t know concerning the particulars of the Haida challenge…” they infer that the reality be balanced by the lies when contemplating the earnest and trustworthy information about me and the work. To simply accept that my and the native individuals’s hopes and goals have been crushed and continued to be crushed by the defamatory lies the of each mainstream and social media knowingly make appears to be what the author would like. Dropping religion and confidence in Nature… heaven forbid.

The ‘fish got here again’, they usually did so within the largest numbers in all of historical past within the area. That return to historic circumstances of well being and abundance of the North Pacific Ocean Pastures would have been persevering with to this present day had not the establishments of science and local weather change, to say nothing of social media and academia, set upon the challenge with their lies and defamation.

How dare a small native village of 800 souls show on the planet’s largest and most profitable ocean restoration experiment show that it might be accomplished by the weakest amongst us.

How dare that small village show that tens of tens of millions of tonnes of yesterday’s lethal overdose of fossil carbon might be inexpensively repurposed into a whole lot of hundreds of thousands of further fish, and naturally the return of all method of different marine life to historic well being and abundance.

Let’s not permit goal trustworthy reporting of the reality that factors clearly to the liars result in one getting emotional concerning the lies and assaults to destroy this very important work to save lots of the planet.

Learn extra about tips on how to comply with the cash to the local weather industrial complicated which could assist clarify the abhorrent nature of Nature.

The best menace to the setting is ready for another person to reserve it.

Russ George

>`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸>·.¸.·´¯`·.¸`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.>

We Deliver Again The Fish – www.russgeorge.internet

About the author

Admin