No actually I understood that. It was the reference which seems to blame Australians luxurious living which stumped me. I've never considered Aussies obsessed with material pursuits, although I don't doubt there are some. I do find a larger majority over there who are more interested in things like permiculture and environmental issues more so than many of the so-called Ecos from the E.U. who think of themselves as on top of the enlightened world.
Biochar is an interesting concept, but not sure how effective overall it would help except on a local personal level and the Carbon Trading schemes to me are like any other political solution(for which - Yes I have ZERO faith in) for which giant corporations will always find loopholes with their expensive team of lawyers. In California for example the giant oil companies along the Ventura and Santa Barbara's coastlines have been fined heavily for non-oil clean up. They always opt to pay finds than actually cleaning up anything because the actual expense of cleaning up is more costly than paying finds. I found this out back in the late 1980s when I worked for Coors Bio-Tech. And I'll tell you this, it means little as to what political party gets elected. Both sides are in bed with corporations despite what one side over there accuses the other of doing. Yes you do. I totally agree, you have far more faith than I do. Good Scientific literature and research on how nature actually works are shelved in favour of a bastardized version for quick profits. I have a realistic observational viewpoint from a historical perspective. For me they are still nothing more imperfect men and women with the same imperfections, faults, religious biases and prejudices common to other human beings despite their self promotion of being above it all. If this were untrue our world would look radically different than it does presently and such forums as this would not exist, since everyone would already know the correct way to live as a responsible custodian of nature. On the contrary, I understand it perfectly. I know that the scientific method is often shelved or not completely utilized when profits or funding are involved. Having written papers along with my wife for grants and understanding how the system's processes work in the real world when it comes to telling the whole truth in order to acquire such funding has been very enlightening as to true honesty and integrity. I even wrote a piece on this. When academic careers and job opportunities are at stake, any grant paper on a research project which seeks funding will not necessarily lie, but will omit and never mention negatives found which actually work against the theory or concept. What will happen is that any real or imagined positives will be exaggerated and embellished to shed a more favourable light on the matter. Again, technically they didn't lie, but they didn't tell the whole truth. GMO pimping is a prime example of this. I am also well aware of the religious philosophical Affirmation that is parroted by many throughout the Earth that science is the ever evolving ever self-correcting mechanism which will eventually save mankind. Seriously, no I don't have that kind of faith in them as you may. I often find it more compelling to listen to an actual practicing researcher (someone involved in the field) than I do some ideological philosophically driven self-promoting academic at an Institution of supposed Higher Learning. I really could care less about Yank Philosophy, Politics or their Religious ideas which I also find in the secularist world which itself makes religious statements, denies it made them, then attempts to dogmatically defend such New Age Enlightened religious worldviews. Putting faith in anything in a general sense is dangerous. If you want something religious and philosophical that is also logical and something worth living by then take a serious hard look at any piece of advice. There is an old Proverb which says "The gullible believe anything they’re told; the prudent sift and weigh every word." This advise should be heeded no matter what the belief system, philosophy or ideology whether the person is conventional religious, secularist, or whatever worldview some future ideologue wants to shove down other's throats. So yes, I don't have faith in every word coming out of a Scientists mouth just because he has a flattering title before his/her name or long pursued coveted initials behind his/her name. And yes, once again, that's why I look at forums like this. It's loaded with folks who are disgusted with the way things have gone in politics, religion, big business and yes bad outdated ideologically biased driven science still obsessed with wealth creation. Many of the concepts and practices promoted here on this forum are made fun of and are at odds with conventional science shackled to big business interests. That we can all agree on. -
'I often find it more compelling to listen to an actual practicing researcher (someone involved in the field) than I do some ideological philosophically driven self-promoting academic at an Institution of supposed Higher Learning.' Academics and practising researchers were one and the same at the university I studied Science at for 5 years in the very recent past. That is how it usually works - they (including up to the Head of Department) lectured for half the academic year and continued their field research in the other half. In five years with many excellent lecturers from Biology, Ecology, Zoology and the Social Sciences I only knew of one who was researching as a result of grants from outside the University. By and large the vast majority of research, whilst incredibly valuable, would not raise an iota of interest from the corporate world. Strangely, I also found all of my lecturers to be down to earth persons, generally ordinary folks of sound integrity.
What in the world are you talking about with "OLD SCIENCE" ? They are the same one's who forced the bogus "Green Revolution" on everyone and look where we are now. I'm not siding with old science, think again. Of course not, but you seem to be reading between the lines here. In my experience anytime I attempted to read between the lines all I ever came up with is empty space. :y: What part of Bad Science and Good Science confused you here ? Does that sound like ALL Scientists ? If this were true, then the planet would be in the proverbial toilette. Take GMO companies. Those scientists are shackled to the wishes and demands of their employers. As Geneticist David Suzuki says, they don't know enough about DNA (despite the propaganda otherwise) to be making the decisions they are in manipulating genetics. (see video Silent Forest) It's a lousy irresponsible science and it's consequences may be worse than the damaging effects of a nuclear accident. At least radiation may degrade in a few thousand years. But how does one reverse genetic pollution ? And yet, there are great examples of where researchers with conscience went against that employer and became a whistle blower on something they and their team created as having possible damaging consequences if allowed to get out in the open. A prime example is the British scientist Arpad Pusztai who spent 36 years at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He is a world expert on plant lectins, authoring 270 papers and three books on the subject. In 1998 Pusztai publicly announced that the results of his research showed feeding genetically modified potatoes to rats had negative effects on their stomach lining and immune system. This led to Pusztai being suspended and his annual contract was not renewed. Instead of attacking his data and research, instead they personally attacked him and character assassinated him and damaged his reputation. Today, this is how real science works. The same identical thing happened to Russian scientist Irina Ermakova who was publicly humiliated & trashed her reputation (as opposed to her data) by the Biotech Industry who have billions to loose. And it wasn't Corporate EXECs who did this, it was other Scientists. Well of course Sherlock, I've already admitted this in the title of this thread. What part of "My Thoughts and Opinions" didn't you understand ? The idea that science is somehow unbiased and neutral is untrue. It will never be unbiased, non-prejudiced or neutral, that's impossible. That's why individuals like the members of this forum will have to decide for themselves which direction to take as opposed to putting faith in every word that spews from a giant Corporation's propaganda page, which was assisted by the best scientists their money could buy. 8) Of course not, but the conventional traditional Bad Science which RULES by means of Corporate entities does stifle any other viable options unless of course they and their Corporate Employers can be in charge of it. Free energy is never a viable option in their perverted view. Remember the "Golden Rule" ? The one with the gold makes the rules.:rofl: AGREED! :handshake: You're kidding right ? You mean like some of the stupid evolutionary psychology papers I've read recently over in the United States that view rape as a reproduction adaptation for spreading one's DNA for future self promotion by those less likely to find find a mate as a result of social inadequacies or say a soldier at war has the urge to rape and pillage because his animal instincts are aware that his career choice as a soldier lower his chances and future prospects of furthering his line of genetic decent ? Seriously, that's some of the junk coming out of modern higher learning. Look, people in North America and probably your Australia are of the freedom mindset that "Nobody's telling me what I can or cannot do" . How does science control that ? They can't. The ONLY way that gets accomplished is if you set up some type of strict socialist world order and literally force people to do the right thing. Who wants that ? I don't want that and I suspect neither do you. :y: Actually there are countless studies out now promoting altering or manipulating the genetics of trees and shrubs to grow into a stunted or dwarfed form of the plant as opposed to their standard larger growth pattern to cope with the coming climate change droughts better. Seriously ? I don't accept that. Why would anybody in their right mind accept that ? Some of these schemes are so retarded and asinine that even an ignorant tribesman in a remote wilderness gets this. And yet, there is great science out there that has proven over and over again and again that mycorrhizal colonization and beneficial bacteria will actually compensate for drought stresses and allow the host to succeed, but now that is NOT the kind of science that rules with an iron fist now is it ? You don't have to answer, I already know you know the answer to this and so does everyone else, otherwise you would not be here at the Permaculture forum. Right now the Americans believe they have just elected the second coming of a Jesus Christ type figure who is going to save everything. Yet in his first term his policies on sustainable energy have destroyed more than they've saved. The policies have allowed several sleazy business schemers to land grab free government land gifts on properties deemed worthless, which couldn't be further from the truth. Wind and Solar belong on the homes of private individuals, but giant corporations over there in the United States (and I believe most likely in every country) still want the large customer base status quo to continue on. They don't want independent sustainable free energy and neither do those (Scientists) who are employed by them. Here let me give you an example of one of the bogus Green Grab schemes. Here's the link, the image is to big to post here: Bulldozers clear an intact desert ecosystem, including hundreds of old Joshua Trees to make way for the Alta Wind facility in the western Mojave Desert. Google invested in the poorly-sited facility, which is sure to reap a handsome reward thanks to the production tax credit. Photo by Friends of Mojave.
I've never seen a yuppie that was into Motor racing, V8 Touring cars, drag racing, NASCAR and the Oval dirt track sprint cars. No one is blameless or holier than though but some of us like to blame everyone but themselves maybe they should "take ownership" We Australians are the 7th biggest polluters in the world we export the coal that China pollutes with,we live beyond our means,we we are a big part of the problem. https://www.wwf.org.au/?4300/Australians-worlds-seventh-biggest-polluters-global-report
True, but there are many Gurus out there who for the most part never been in the field. I did however write about my Agricultural Instructor who is both Academic and a real world filed man who knew his business. He was involved in a controversy where a Big Corpoate Ag Giant resented his teaching a course called "Issues in Agriculture" which dealt with the problems of non-sustainable Agricultural practices. This Beef Feedlot Empire didn't like the fact he had used one of Michael Pollan's (of Food Inc fame) books in class and threatened to withhold precious funding that had been previously promised by Harris Ranch. They demanded he be removed or fired. He volunteered to step down after discussions with the administration of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. You have no idea how irritating this is. It's common place over there and the way business and academics is run. Rather than explain it, I'll let you read it. There is actually more It is here: Teachers & Instructors That Make a Difference in Life
Earth's Internet I have a lot of sympathy for your point of view. I thought i was a pessimist until reading your posts. Now I look positively optimistic next to you. Remember Rachel Carson was a scientist too. The point about the Yank sun thing was the lack of science education (see link) i wasn't making a religious connection I assumed most religions got over sun/ earth thing a little after Galileo. You should look deeper into carbon sequestration via biochar. While not THE answer it holds the promise of making a major contribution to the "fix" if taken up widely enough (Permaculture might make a contribution too) Carbon markets i am reserving judgement on; mostly it is too early yet to see what impact they may, or may not, have. i would like to see someone make the links between biochar/farmers/environment/carbon markets. (In Australia we are destroying our Great Barrier Reef with agricultural run off Biochar could substantially ameliorate that) Maybe there are simple answers but. . .
LOL Sorry I have to laugh, my wife says the same thing. She is Swedish and I live in Sweden where the climate here drives me crazy. Cold, Windy and Wet almost constantly. I also have a dislike for cities, never really lived in one until now. I wrote a piece yesterday on Göteborg and how I am challenging myself to find things I enjoy about living here. It's tough when you have lived in the outdoors most of your life and now find yourself shackled to being a prisoner indoors by climate. I'm also about to post a piece on Epigenetics and inheritance. I inherited a lot of impatience and irritability from my Dad who I did NOT get along with or speak to the last two years of his life. I have to constantly put up a fight on this, so I apologize. But I am if anything jealous for the natural world. Must be why I resided in wilderness for almost 24 years. Trip Advisor "Lonely Planet" says Gothenburg Sweden is #2 on the Top Ten List -
Earth's Internet, I thought in your original post that you where asking for comments on your linked post on Climate Change - it appears that was not the case. You obviously have all the answers and know better and more than most. Good for you. Please do let me know when it's all safe again. I personally want to know a lot more than you have offered in your post - as suggested in the title. I will look elsewhere, sorry, your writing style and responses are not for me.
I'm confused here, what is it that created this He (Earth's Internet) must be anti-science ? I seriously don't understand where that came from other than Myles Religious ASSUMPTIONS or ASSERTIONS because I exposed the dirty underwear of conventional science which is literally killing our world. I used exactly three descriptive phrases in my appraisal of Science. Bad Science, Good Science and I believe I even said Great Science. But from this, only my use of Bad Science gets the P.R. treatment. Why ? On the subject of Rachel Carson, yes she was a good Scientist and dealt with and championed better Science. But she was vilified and demonized by the conventional profiteering wing of BAD SCIENCE which rather than attack her studies and data, made personal attacks and insults by things like rumoring she was a Lesbian and so forth and so on. Hence I world consider that BAD SCIENCE. Theo Colborn is going through some of the same crappola with the chemical industries with her work exposing the destructive nature of the chemicals found in most all plastics called Nonyphenols and Bisphenol-A. See documentaries BBC Horizon Assault on the Male (1993) and The Disappearing Male (2009) and the book and website - https://www.ourstolenfuture.org/ Let's try not to bring up the anti-science thing again. I think Permaculture, Bio-Char and Terra Preta are great sciences. I also think Mycorrhizal and beneficial applications are far better sciences than Chemical Bad Sciences. I'm at odds with bad degenerative sciences and I won't brown nose the word/term science just for the sake of it. For the moment BAD SCIENCE rules, but that doesn't mean I'm against science though some out there do worship on the Alter and believe it's infallible. I'm simply not one of those. Yes, but usually the criticism is pointed at religion as Dr Jon points towards in that link. I hate what religion has done on this planet as equally as anyone else, but I'm not going to replace it with another bad cult of sorts which is steeped in faith statements, fables and myths and then proceeds to deny any of that. There is good and bad about religion, but science certainly has no immunity there - Beware the creeping cracks of bias Evidence is mounting that research is riddled with systematic errors. Left unchecked, this could erode public trust, warns Daniel Sarewitz. AND Why Most Published Research Findings Are False Actually I have been interested in those things. As I pointed out in another forum on the subject of Hugelkulture, the process is reminiscient of what flood plains accomplish. There is always something found in nature that had this first. I've got to run but wanted to firehose the flames of Anti-Science accusations here - Thanks
I can only speak for myself here, but there are two reasons why I'd have just moved on to read something else. This is not meant as a flame or to bash your attempts to write something you feel passionately about, but hopefully a helpful answer to your question. Fair warning, I tend to lack tact(or as I prefer to say it, I don't mince words). 1) The large font. I always get the feeling that the person using large fonts for everything isn't quite right in the head or is yelling at me. I'm not sure why and this might be my problem. 2) The overall tone. The large font might play in to this, but the overall tone seemed very anti-science. Yes, I read the whole thing. While I risk sounding hypocritical here, it seems like you're just rambling on against science in general. I find that my typing skills leave much to be desired, and I generally end up saying everything I'm trying not to say and usually apologize for it later.
No Problemo Again no Problemo. My wife complains about the same thing. However you should have seen it before, I've toned it down believe it or not. I have a large double screen Monitor and perhaps on smaller monitors it is a bit much. *smile* I've heard that before, not true here though. Interesting, so when I actually differentiate between bad science and what is good science, the reader views any criticism of ANY science whatsoever as anti - science ? I mean even if normal font aside and everything ? Apparently if I criticized religious individuals like Osama bin Ladan, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson or the Dali lama, by this definition i must be anti - religious ? Or if I criticize Josef Stalin, Ronald Reagan, or Barack Obama, I could be perceived as Anti - political ? Sorry, I had to give extremes here, no sarcasm intended, but that is what it seems. I literally hate irresponsible science, which isn't the same as hating science. I gave examples already of good science, but apparently hackles go up if any type or kind of science gets questioned. That's curious given the fact that conventional ruling Elites of science which control with an iron fist quite often make fun of many of the techniques and innovations championed at such forums as this. I've had some bad experiences with the way things are done behind the scenes that most in the public don't often see or hear about unless they are looking for it. When I worked for Coors Bio-Tech (a subsidiary of Coors Brewing Co - Golden Colorado) I discovered some inconsistencies in the safety data sheets and claims made on about a certain Eco-green item being marketed around the USA back in 1989. A Volatile Organic Compound (a like any Essential Oil) was used as the main ingredient in this cleaner which was originally developed for safer brewing tank cleaning jobs. I offered some simple tests and experiments that even a kid entering an Elementary School Science Fair could conduct. They were not pleased. The head scientist involved who was really kool apologized for my contract not being renewed, it was the superiors above him. Six months later the program died and product abandoned as a result. Doesn't matter now, but I was crushed at the time. I've been at odds with US Forest Service hierarchy who often make out reports based on ideology and politics and nothing to do with how nature actually works when it comes to restoring ecosystems. So my apologies for coming off harsh with against misused and abused science. doesn't mean i'm anti-science however. Don't worry about it, you did fine. :handshake: - :y:
Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of bad science and some people do treat science quasi-religiously. Differentiating bad science from good is often troublesome because it's all represented as fact(I'm pretty sure it's because of vested interests). Even in general conversation, some things are taken as fact even though it's been disproved time and time again(if it's on the internet it must be true!). I can't really put my finger on what makes me think that the message is anti-science, even with the author telling me otherwise. Maybe it's because there is no balance between bad and good science in the post? Maybe if you added some good science examples on climate change to the post and explained the details? I'm not really sure, but I'm just one reader so it might not make much of a difference in the long run. I have the same trouble with American news reporting too. It always seems to have an agenda to me because they seem incapable of removing emotion from their reports. I work for local government, so I know how shady things can get. As far as I'm concerned, I'm working for the people. That puts me at odds with my "betters" who would prefer to lie to the public. Not misrepresenting the truth, or putting in some spin, just flat out lies. So I guess if I wrote something up about the government I work for, I would probably seem anti-government because the good things are so overly outweighed by the bad.
you said it there unmutual & as well as what E I said, there is no way known we the masses could ever know who to trust in the sciences, we either roll over and let them rub our bellies or we just outright oppose them, not like they established themselves in our communities so we the masses would know them ie.,. like there was a long line of hard copy history which led to them then people could make a wise choice. but alas these are men/women of the most modern time with no historical backup apart from maybe out to 1k years more like 500 to 700 years but. and they grew out of opposition to what people believed at the time. they live on speculation and fear hype almost nothing they do can be proven in real hard copy time. it is all conjecture, speculation and theory, like betting on track dogs or horses in lots of ways. except they are laying bets on at the tote for the masses, all for their ego's misled as what they certainly look like they are. no one can oppose them any scientist that does is disbarred from the pat each other on the back club. they have charters written that simply say support our consensus or go get another job. i commented once about a young (aboriginal) scientist who commented that the aboriginal people could not have been here as long as science would have us believe, and i got hit with the gag charter that scientist is supposed to work under with the added comment "no self respecting scientist would go against the junta". how are we to hope for truth if they gag any opposition? sounds like communism. as for religion it is the same as the sciences because science is a religion it is no other way, look at how many people get blind sided by their forceful theories, hey! which will never be proven in 'fact', so all being religions they draw people into dogmatism, to teh extent that all those who believe not should be summarily permanently gagged, and they have biases when they know so little about what they oppose, because it is fashionable and scientifically ethical to do so. so as that lady minister in parliament said " if anyone who works for dept' of met', does not believe in CO2 Climate Change, then they should seek other employment" great stuff hey? never heard one scientist come out against that statement, why! because they ahve all signed their lives and minds away. to the point if anyone does spot the error they can't mention it or face disbarment and ostrasisation the only good sciences if any is those that actually do something to improve the lot of peoples, like in the medicines but they are not very good or even perfect as all men have weaknesses, called the power and the glory but alas these modern ones are faceless and nameless in our societies. my heads on the block, i follow evidence that science can neither prove or disprove that was written from about 6k years ago up to about 2k years ago, something sciences cannot provide for those whom they want to follow and worship them. take care new times ahead i feel. len
Further Possible Climate Implications ? Who really knows for sure: Underwater Electrical Networks: Possible Climate Driver Which Might Have Been Disrupted ? -
I can't be conclusive about Global Warming, but I can be absolutely certain about environmental change caused by the very same things that are 'postulated' as causing global warming . There is barely a waterway around here that isn't dry, polluted with agricultural run-off, dying. There is salt, there is erosion, there is dust, top soil flying through the air, there is chemical pollution, there is bare earth where great forests once stood, gaping wounds in the ground. Aren't those things enough to warrant not doing it anymore?! It's not hard to imagine that given all the other incredible damage we have done and continue to do that it might also be causing the globe to warm. I mean the things we have done have been done on a massive scale. Do you really need science to tell you one way or another? Are you really that disconnected from nature? Stupid unsustainable actions are stupid unsustainable actions regardless of the agreed consequences. Can't we just stop this petty squabbling and get on with the task of repairing some of the damage? I'm just saying, global warming is in many respects small change compared to what we have already done in the name of 'progress'
In one week, the NYC area experienced an Earthquake (2.5), Hurricane Sandy, and a Noreaster. The US, and for that matter, the entire North America has had a radical shift in how farming has been practiced in the last 500 years for the worse. Large tracts of windbreaks are, & have been systematically destroyed, in short, without any understanding the people of the European colonization of the Americas destroyed not only vast food forests, but an inordinate amount of soil, water and more. Meanwhile, people who SCUBA Dive, Surf, and work / live on the oceans notice the warm water animals keep moving more north, and ports like the Portland River are getting more excessively dangerous. Without Science empirical evidence (measuring daily).. just by planting trees.. even Mr. Mollison has shown a several foot increase in sea levels. It matters not your definition of global warming, climate change, etc., fact of the matter is it is occurring, and not in ways humans are used to dealing with.
You may enjoy this then Pakanohida . The subject is on forest restoration of rehabilitation and what good Scientific discovery through observation has reveal. It's generally better to have a hands-off approach as opposed to manipulating and forcing recovery even if it is believed to have the best of intentions. In the past I and others over there in Southern California have been at odds with the U.S. & State Forest Services and their biologists over their terrible restoration techniques and beliefs. But here's an example of what a simulated hurricane disaster revealed. Rebuilding Ecosystems After a Man Made or Natural Disaster -
I enjoyed that. After we had serious flooding here, many riparian species were laid flat in certain parks. The Council removed almost every tree that was on a lean or flat. Those areas are bare, still, after 1 year. The ones that were missed, closer to the water's edge, threw out epicormic growth along their trunks and now look like small trees again (for the Aussies that are interested, the main species that did that were Callistemon/Melaleuca viminalis.) I'd assume they are now re-stabilising the banks and catching silt for regeneration.
While there is not a lot I do like about living in Sweden as a result of challenging weather, I do admire that even in their public parks, they will leave dead tree trunks and other snags to be utilized by wildlife. Where I come from they always want to quickly cut down such objects for firewood , etc. Then they complain about the plight of the native mountain Blue Bird who is in danger of going extinct in some areas because of the lack of nesting cavities which are normally found in old leftover snags for which woodpeckers carve out homes for others. At that point someone comes up with the brilliant idea of building man made wooden bird house boxes and nailing them to all manner of trees. Go figure!
