I now accept that I fell for the brainwashing too; climate change is a real and present danger
and Allan Savory's claims are still crap.
Like covid I am sick to death of about hearing about climate change, I’m going to put it to bed once and for all.
‘AIDS’, ‘Covid’ and ‘climate change’ are whipped up to promote fear and negative emotion clicks but are all nebulous collections of ubiquitous, common and wide-ranging symptoms or weather patterns, that can be added to at will. Some symptoms may present sometimes but not other times. Each set and each individual symptom all have multiple causes.
Thousands were predicted to die of the scourge of AIDS, millions from the deadly Covid global pandemic and the whole of humanity from Big Bad Weather. They are all hugely media friendly stories. They require very lucrative wars to be waged against them. The wars can of course never succeed and go on indefinitely because the fight is not against real problems.
Pictures of coffins, people falling over and fires, storms and mad weather make great news and click bait, whether believing or debunking. The promotion of covid, AIDS and climate change fear have as much to do with money and how the media makes it than a plan to control us.
Climate change promotion may be a power play by solar, wind and electric/coal energy and preparing for peak oil however, Just Stop Oil is in fact funded by and promotes oil.
Intelligent well meaning scientists can only get funding for causes with political support and have to research and publish about carbon emissions and non-existent viruses ad nauseum.
Just like antibodies to proteins are easy to measure and are used as a marker for ‘immunity’, though their role in the complex homeostatic system is completely misunderstood; so co2 is an easy substance to measure, though it’s role in the complex and vast system of earth is surely not fully understood. We’re distracted by antibodies and infectious disease and carbon and crazy storms and made to feel something is being done about them because they don’t want us looking into poverty and pollution.
Just like trying to make antibodies to so-called ‘covid’ proteins with jabs was a very ill conceived idea, so trying to artificially adjust and control levels of co2 will be a disaster.
AIDS, Covid and climate change were invented to mask real causes of illness and ecological destruction which the mining, drug, diamond, ‘fossil’ fuel, animal agriculture, fishing, GMO, agrochemical and pharmaceutical industries do not want revealed.
The war on AIDS, involving lethal AZT, funnelled $trillions into the pharmaceutical and testing industry. A market for AZT was even created in malnourished Africans whose weight loss was diagnosed as HIV, even without the charade of testing, when they were simply living in poverty and starving.
The war on covid never addressed any issues of appalling air pollution in China and other areas of the world and childhood pneumonia continues to kill millions.
‘Climate change’ was created to be nebulous and inexact, to promote disastrous carbon control projects and other forms of energy production to prepare for peak oil, to make media friendly images of big bad weather and to funnel money into an endless war against it.
But mostly it is to distract us and to allow us to imagine that we are addressing the ‘environmental issue’ when we are actually ignoring real and urgent problems;
Poverty and malnutrition
Mitigating the effects on food production of the highest ever temperatures in India, Pakistan and other countries
Rising sea levels flooding Low Countries
Contamination of water and soil from burning ‘fossil’ fuel and from toxic sewage runoff
Alzheimers, Parkinsons, autism and liver cancer from vaccines, fertilisers, pesticides and from eating sick animals that have been pumped full of drugs to fatten them or just keep them alive
Factory farming 80 billion animals, just about every shop and restaurant bought burger, bacon sandwich and latte
Greenwashed grass-fed flesh only available to well off and increasing global inequality
Loss of pollinators and soils becoming more and more infertile
Mass species extinction
Most oceans being exhausted or overfished
All oceans being full of mercury and plastic
Loss of oxygen producing trees and plankton
Air pollution
Mountains of land fill
The disaster of the green revolutions
🐒
PS.
Baby elephant killing, merciless, industry shill Allan Savory and the myth that cows are good for the environment.
There are no peer reviewed showing that his method works, even after 4 decades. There are only before and after pictures of dry land that’s been irrigated.
In a 2000 review of short term grazing at high stock rates on irrigated pasture such as Savory’s method showed that it increased soil erosion, decreased water filtration into the soil and rejected the myth that soil health was improved.
Out of 10 studies of animal productivity only 1 showed increased productivity with Savory’s method and 4 showed decreased productivity.
50 studies show little difference between condition of the land or livestock production with conventional or Savory’s method.
According to papers in Agricultural Systems the method does not increase carbon in the soil, nor does it improve biodiversity of plants, nor does it benefit the soil.
Short term grazing was rebranded as Holistic Mangement. But is basically the same short term grazing but with a pseudo scientific management system that must be bought from the for-profit Savory foundation.
An Agricultural Systems paper mistakenly claimed that other authors had found more carbon in the soil using Savory’s method when it was not statistically significant.
Do his methods reverse desertification? Cows require 18,000,000 calories a day. A 2002 paper showed supplemental feed costs are higher using Savory’s method.
The land is irrigated by this rich white guy, taking water from else where, which is why cows are able to live on it.
It is only viable where water points are close.
Pictures that Savory claims were from some irrigated areas, were in fact from other areas.
There would not be enough room on the earth to replace the dead animals we eat now with grass fed animals.
Can grazing reverse climate change and Co2? No published data. Using all available land would still be 8 fold less sequestration than required. Some greenhouse gas methane would have been produced by the millions of bison that were slaughtered but factory farmed flesh and dairy animals produce more due to their unnatural GMO corn and soy diets. This is used as an excuse to alter farmed cows diets further or even genetically engineer animals. For patents and profits of course.
Do plants die without grazing animals? No. Many unpopulated areas without large mammals are lush. Changing rain patterns affect desertification not animals.
Lots of energy is put in for electrification of fences and labour.
Chickens fed tonnes of imported corn and soy are used to fertilise his cow pastures. The dead cows are then sold at a premium to the small percentage who can afford it as ‘green’, organic and ‘sustainable’.
Savory says that he is very sad about murdering the 40,000 elephants but is continuing his blunder by claiming that killing yet millions more animals is the solution.
Savory says that animals are the only way to produce food from some land. This is not true, hemp and fungi can be grown in many of these areas to stop desertification.
Eating direct from the soil uses much less land so wild animals can be allowed to graze on all the extra land. The energy, nutrients and carbon from these animals will not be removed from the system as they are not taken away to be eaten.
Veganism is undoubtedly the best way. 45% of land would be realised to feed humans directly. 56% of water would be realised to green up the land.
Thanks to
And from The Sierra Club ‘In Savory's universe, ungrazed land, known as "rested" land, will always wither away. "It's just wrong," said Brewer. A substantial number of studies on desert grassland have found that with rest, grass cover "increases dramatically," while "intensive grazing delays this recovery."
‘Rest from grazing, contrary to Savory's claims, did not result in desertification. Instead, minimal grazing and then a complete respite from cattle produced a healthy, self-sustaining ecosystem. ‘
‘When there are too many cows in places with intermittent or little rain, where the vegetation is brittle and the soil fragile, the animals spell trouble. Overgrazing denudes the soil and produces erosion, which leads to a landscape where plants can't revive and grow. At least 8.4 billion acres on the planet are grazed, and 73 percent of that land is suffering from some form of land degradation, according to the International Journal of Biodiversity. The problem is perhaps worst across arid lands where plants evolved with almost no exposure to large grazers, such as in the mountainous west of the United States—where Savory happens to live.’
"Every study of holistic planned grazing that has been done has provided results that are rejected by range scientists because there was no replication!"Savory's claims "are not only unsupported by scientific information, but they are often in direct conflict with it." Briske's study, published in the journal of the Society for Range Management in 2013, concluded: "We find all of Mr. Savory's major claims to be unfounded."
The Briske team found that Savory misrepresented the photos of landscapes he presents as evidence of the alleged desertifying effect of removing cattle. One of the photo series he often uses features Chaco Culture National Historical Park in New Mexico. But the land, the Briske report said, was not desertified from lack of cattle. Instead, the landscape was slowly recovering from decades of abusive overgrazing. (I emailed Briske for an interview, but he declined to talk. "Frankly, I have grown weary of the grandiose and unsubstantiated claims of Mr. Savory," Briske replied.)
‘If I had most of the credible range scientists getting together to write papers saying I was full of crap, I'd do some real soul-searching," he replied. "As a scientist, that's what you'd have to do. But I don't know if he (Savory) is a scientist."
Finally a note on the mistake of comparing Co2 between historical eras to debunk climate change.
The high co2 in the Cambrian 500 million years ago is because plants, which suck in the co2, had just started to evolve then. There may well have been high co2 but the earth was not habitual for humans either. The window of opportunity for mammalian life is probably quite small.
According to wiki Co2 is not toxic but part of the natural greenhouse effect, of which water vapour (that humans also make a lot of) makes up 30-70%. Without the greenhouse effect the earth would be -18 C.
Co2 is now 421 ppm up from 281 ppm pre industrial revolution in the 1850s and the highest for 14 million years.
This increase in carbon causes plants to photosynthesis and grow more, but this is offset by forests being cut down.
Here are some other graphs
This shows the larger seasonal variation and increased co2 in the temperate, industrialised northern hemisphere.
And here is a great video debunking Jordon Peterson’s claims on the climate temperature going up and down in the last 10,000 years ending up in the present day with temperatures being much lower than the peaks. Except that the graph ended in 1855 before the industrial revolution really took and was from a single source, when everyone knows the results from multiple sources need to be added together as see the earth as a whole. Doing so shows that the last 10,000 years are stable until the industrial revolution where temperatures rise dramatically.
I still think that ‘climate change’, though most admit it is changing as we come out of an ice age and is caused by humans, though it may not be an emergency just yet, it will be, has been scare mongered and used to distract from real ecological destruction, but the imbalance in carbon and methane and nitrous oxide (much more potent that carbon dioxide) from factory farming billions of animals and feeding them unnatural diets, though they are just small parts of the whole, vast system, having some effect is not entirely without merit.
‘Judged by their actions rather than their words, many environmental organizations put more emphasis on sustaining a modern western lifestyle than on sustaining the planet.
They’ve become more focused on what is politically feasible than what is ecologically necessary.
This is a very serious problem.’ Max Wilbert
We may be able to sustain humans with intensive farming and our way of life for awhile, but it is clearly not sustainable for anyone else nor the planet.
Jo
People seem to forget that totalitarians/authoritarians love to co-opt any and every issue that does actually matter and twist it to fit their agenda. The war on terror was perfect for TPTB because they no longer had to use false flags to initiate military aggression. Now the "enemy" could be anyone, anywhere. Climate change is even better. Take the problem of environmental destruction and poisoning of our land, air, and water and turn it into a ridiculous war against CO2. Now you don't even need an enemy. Anytime the weather isn't cool and calm, you can demand that people give up their sovereignty and submit to everything from CBDC's to surveillance all in the name of trying to change the weather.
It's going to be a bit of a tightrope walk to be able to continue fighting for the environment while distancing ourselves from power structures such as the WEF and WHO. I do think more people are starting to get the nuance of these issues and not be one of the extremes of either a Green Nazi or an apathetic carnivore.
Nice take!
It's the current "Big Thing" for everyone to rally around and enjoy group-fear together again.
At this point I am ready to burst out laughing if anyone brings it up. I heard about Watt's Up With That? about 5 months ago, and now every day is a happy climate-fears debunked day.
Unlike with the corona, more people are aware of this new set of lies. I hope this trend of diminished credulity continues its upward trajectory steadily.