Shared from YouTube:
I don’t need to say much here other than that the following reblog is absolutely the case, well put, on the renewable energy lie. The so-called ‘renewables’ are N-O-T not, the future of energy. There is no future of energy – of the kind, and level, that we have become reliant on for our daily existence.
Renewable energy is, at best, a temporary, partial, stop-gap between a fossil-fuel driven society and a post-fossil-fuel society, which may give us a 25 year (max) step-down period to adjust to that idea.
At worst, renewable energy is a total folly, which may ensure that we have no future for our daily existence.
Idyllic scene, you might think?
Well, of course some people don’t like them and some people do, for various reasons, which I won’t go into here.
The reason for this post is to show that massive structures like this can never be part of our long-term energy future.
Here’s the base of one of those towers being put into place :
All that rebar and all that cement…..made with the energy from fossil fuels.
Next comes the tower, fabricated elsewhere, using, you guessed it, energy from fossil fuels. Oh, and that big semi-trailer thingy runs on diesel :
Whacking big crane to lift the tower into place. Fossil fuels made that, too :
Up goes the tower. What’s driving that crane? Oh, of course, fossil fuels :
There are more images where these came from, and a comprehensive analysis of how much energy it takes to put one wind…
View original post 736 more words
I think that everyone knows that the MH17 inquiry just concluded was a total sham designed to reach one conclusion and one conclusion only and that having been decided two years ago before it even started. Such a tainted affair merits no credibility whatsoever but it does show that powerful forces want at any cost to cast blame and reproach on one particular party. A plan which implies that those forces wish to hide their own guilt.
The question to ask then is – “Who benefits from the MH17 inquiry finding?”
I came across this today – MH17 Inquiry’s Final Episode: ‘Who Benefits?’ (Video). It is a genuine inquiry into the MH17 affair, where all available evidence (not fictitious ‘secret’ evidence) is considered.
The conclusion is that it was not a BUK missile but a Ukraine Air Force Mig29 fighter jet, presumably under orders not necessarily originating from Ukraine military sources, which brought that fateful flight down.
While I had not been aware of the existence of this series until today, I have been exposed to some of the evidence used in it and for the last two years have maintained and promoted the facts as being exactly what is found by this inquiry. I feel entirely vindicated by these findings and I honestly feel that herein lies the truth of the matter.
- No blame can be attached to Russia.
- No blame can be attached to the brave peoples forces of the Luhansk and Donetsk Independent Republics – elsewhere referred to as the ‘rebels’.
- No blame can be attached to whoever in the Ukraine military ordered and fired the weapon that brought down the aircraft – other than what their own conscience permits.
- The entire blame resides with those forces that dreamed up the planned attack for their own devious and evil purposes. I don’t know who those people are but I do know who their current leader is – President of the United States – Barak Obama. That direction is where the finger needs to point.
Entirely worth taking the time to view, this inquiry is published as six fairly brief YouTube videos. The final episode is linked to in the article. There is also a link to the whole MH17 Inquiry Series there. If you don’t have time to watch all episodes I suggest 2, 4, 5 and the final one are the most important and revealing.
Please don’t allow the wool to be pulled over your eyes by what the media and government want you to see and know and also what they want you to not see and to not know.
Here is another post from my Facebook page that I wanted to share here. I seem to spend most of my writing time these days commenting on the Syrian situation. I feel that is important, perhaps the most important thing going on in our times or at least just now in the second half of 2016. The subject relates to this Russia Insider article: US Outcry Over Syria… Tears Followed by NATO Bombs
This is entirely my own view:
It is important to speak out when you see injustice and bad things happening anywhere, no matter who it is that is offending against humanity.
That is why I have been concentrating on the situation in Syria over recent weeks and why I will continue to do so for as long as it takes to get the message out (because the media does not generally seem willing or able to do so) on just what is really going on there.
Shamefully, it is my own nation, Australia, that is on the wrong side in this affair as part of the Western Alliance led by those inveterate warmongers, wreckers of nations and prolific killers of innocents, the US. I’m not sure why we Australians side with them because, let’s face it, they always lose, go home, sulking, with their tails between their legs and leaving behind them utter suffering and chaos which the peoples of the world have to soothe, heal, clean up and pay for.
And neither the media nor the UN is helping.
Take Aleppo, over which most of the current screaming, ranting and hair pulling is being wrought. The largest city in Syria, with a population of some 2.5 million people (Yes, it actually belongs to Syria) is largely controlled by the legitimate Syrian government except for an eastern enclave which is occupied and held by brutal terrorists which the West tends to describe as ‘moderate rebels’ to justify their ongoing support to them, and also a smaller enclave held by Kurdish forces. Syria and their allies are justifiably attempting (and will succeed) to drive out or destroy those terrorists. The West, on the other hand, is aiding the terrorists (with arms and embedded US ‘advisers’) because what they are doing suits US policy drives to get rid of the Assad regime.
Inside the terrorist enclave live around 250,000 Syrians (some willingly, some not, some actively trying to escape) and it is inevitable that there will be civilian casualties caused by the conflict. It is these people (one tenth of the total population of the city) and their estimated 100,000 children who are at grave risk. Is that the fault of the Syrian government? No. Not in any way is it their fault, or the Russians, or any of their allies. The fault lies with the terrorists and their Western backers entirely. Read the RI article for more on that.
Are the Syrian government forces or the Russians targeting these trapped people with barrel bombs, chemical weapons or munitions of any sort? Of course not. That would be unconscionable. Amnesty International observers have concurred to that. Terrorists, on the other hand, and their US suppliers, have no conscience (oh, they pretend to, I grant you).
Here is a snippet from the RI article:
“And a key leitmotif of the official Western narrative is to create the perception that innocent civilians in Aleppo are being slaughtered by Syria and Russian forces. Both Damascus and Moscow reject claims that they are targeting civilian areas. Moscow has vehemently refuted Western claims that it is committing war crimes. Even the normally jingoistic US outlet Radio Free Europe quotes a legal expert from Amnesty International as saying that there is no evidence to indict Russia of such crimes.
And because the anti-government militants restrict access to their stronghold, including for UN aid agencies, it is hard to verify the claims and footage coming out of there. Which notwithstanding has not restrained Western media from broadcasting the information verbatim.”
Use your own judgement. You can’t believe anything that you read in mainstream media nor anything that your politicians are telling you.
Finally (for today), I believe that this situation will develop into all out global war, mainly because that is what the Americans want and indeed need in order to resurrect their failing economy for a while. We Australians will unfortunately find ourselves dragged into that on the wrong side and many of our major cities will end up as smoking ruins where life will be impossible for centuries or even millennia.
I spent a lot of time today writing a piece on my Facebook page which is where I do most of my work these days. I thought I would share that here verbatim other than tidying up the links. I hope it may help someone who may be struggling to come to terms with the issues covered. Here is a link to my Facebook page.
Having a day off from bashing America I thought I would revert to one other of my favourite memes. One that I have not recently visited. Time for a refresher.
The problem, whether considered to generally be a problem or not, is the issue of over-population. My mind was focused on this through a post by my FB friend Bev here (which is also very worth reading): Bev’s FB post That story contained a statement that the world would pass 9billion population by 2050. True, but not the whole truth. I have previously shown that there will be more than 10billion souls alive in 2050 (barring nasty but real events that could well quickly reduce our numbers drastically).
I will get to that in a minute, but Lo and Behold, while I was thinking about this I opened this post: A Timeline of Earth’s Average Temperature Since the Last Ice Age Glaciation This is an amazing timeline of human existence which shows that our current world climate conditions have never been as extreme as they are today. It is not a complete history of mankind, in that it does not include our origins and I would argue some of the time points but that it not my focus today.
One thing it does show is the very small period of time in which man has had the capability to engineer his own destruction, and the consequences of following that path projected a little way ahead.
All of that is interesting in itself and you could spend all day looking and thinking about that yourself if you had a mind to, but my purpose here is to overlay (in words) the timeline of human population growth on this fascinating picture. It won’t take long and I don’t mind if you ignore what I have to say and just take some time to consider what is already there.
First I need to rework the figures to bring them right up to date. For this I use as a basis the data from the Worldometers website (very interesting).
The current annual population growth rate is taken as around 1.13% with a net annual increase of around 86million folk and a period of 11.6 years to add the next billion people. Let’s see how that is going. Take the current net increase so far this year given as over 58.7million. We have just passed the 2/3 point in the year so if we add half of the current growth that should give us a rough figure for the whole year. It comes to 88million which gives us a period of just 11.36 years to add the next billion. Does that look like a decreasing population. Well, if you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope it might.
One step further – has the annual growth rate changed based on that figure? OK, 88million into 7.45billion (current pop. count) as a percentage is 1.18%. It does not sound much when you consider that in the 1960s the growth rate peaked around 2% but in terms of the absolute number it is a considerable increase on recent figures. All of this demonstrates that if anyone tries to tell you that the population will stabilise around 2020 they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
Here are the historical facts and my calculations for the future (again barring any unfortunate ‘accidents’ that may occur).
From our earliest historical beginnings, way back in the mists of time (did you follow that time-line through slowly to get some sort of feel for that?), our numbers never, as far as we know, exceeded 1 solitary billion right up until the year 1804CE (Current Era). Just 212 years and probably less than 10 generations of your ancestors ago. Make a mental note of where that position is on the time-line.
From that point, 1804, go forward 123 years to 1927. That is the period when population growth began and it took those 123 years for it to reach the next billion mark. When I was born in 1945, just 18 years later, the figure was ~2.5billion and it took just 37 years in total – that is to 1960 – to reach the next billion milestone.
Those post-war years were the period of our greatest percentage growth (but the actual numbers were minuscule compared to today’s figures – because total population was still quite small – but growing).
The move from 3billion to 4billion took just 14 years to 1974.
The move from 4billion to 5billion took just 13 years to 1987.
The move from 5billion to 6billion took just 12 years to 1999.
(Are you following this on the time-line?)
From that point it has taken just 12 years to again add the next billion.
The move from 6billion to 7billion took just 12 years to 2011.
We now stand at 7.45billion just 5 years later and it looks like we are moving to an eleven year period for new billions to be added.
Let’s project that into the future.
By 2022-3 the population could be 8billion.
By 2034-5 the population could be 9billion.
By 2046-7 the population could be 10billion.
And finally, by 2050 the population could be well on its way to 11billion.
Get the picture?
So, that’s it. That’s what faces us. And if you don’t see that as being a huge problem then I feel sorry for you. I make no representations as to what this means, action it may call for, or likely consequences. Those should all be fairly obvious.
I’m done now. Need a cup of tea.
It has been a while since I posted anything here, I am having way too much fun on Facebook. But I thought this was worth taking the time to post.
Economics. You’re either an expert or you are not. It seems that the more expert you become, the more incomprehensible and the less understandable you become.
For example, listen to this economist trying to explain economics simply:
This says a lot about economics, very little of which, you (or I) need to know in order to understand how the world works or what its current situation is.
I share it only to illustrate the point that the speaker makes: “Never trust an economist. That includes me.” (Him, not me. I am not an economist.)
In contrast, take this story from The Guardian.
Image credit: The Vanguard-class submarine HMS Vigilant at the Faslane naval base on the Clyde. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA
A story about an economics problem that is facing the new British Prime Minister, Theresa May, tomorrow Monday 18 July, 2016: Trident: what you need to know before the parliamentary vote.
The story can be summed up like this, and I quote: “In 2006, a Ministry of Defence white paper estimated the cost of replacing the vessels (Trident Submarines) to be between £15bn-£20bn. CND now estimates that it will cost over £200bn.” Italics, mine, to provide clarity.
This story says little about economics but it does tell you all that you (or I) need to know in order to understand how the world works or what its current situation is.
I share it only to illustrate the point that, economically, in 2016 the world is way more ‘fucked’ (10 times more ‘fucked’, in fact) than it was back in 2006.
Now, that’s economics.
“Debt Is Good”
“Debt Is Good”
Everybodyyyy… All together nowwww…
“Debt Is Good”
“Debt Is Good”
It is not at all easy to laugh with your tongue in your cheek, or even with someone else’s tongue in your cheek. But Dmitry Orlov makes it all seem entirely possible in this beautifully rendered and timeless essay on the ‘ZIRP-NIRP Gap’.
You will enjoy it, I guarantee it. But be warned, you may accidentally bite your tongue …or whoever else’s tongue you happen to… oh, forget it.
Just read the damn thing: The Negative Interest Rate Gap
Added after publication:
Now, let’s see just how this works. I have an interest in that sort of interest, you see, not having a great deal of money of my own. I find it quite interesting.
If I were to borrow $1,000,000 at -7%pa interest, that means that the bank would be paying me $70,000 a year to hold their money, or $5,833.33 a month. I think I could live quite well on that. Bring it on. I would have to withdraw the monthly payment immediately of course in cash, or I would need to pay them a percentage back, because I would then be a depositor.
When I am ready, having accumulated enough to last me for the rest of my life, I could just give them their million dollars back. With a big thank you. Why doesn’t the world already operate like that? A much better system than we have now. Whoever dreamed that up I wonder? It must have been the twisted mind of an accountant.
Sometimes The Guardian gets things so right, but other times they get things oh so wrong that one wonders what substance they are abusing now. This is one of those oh so wrong times: The end of capitalism has begun
Image Credit: Welcome to an age of sharing. Illustration by Joe Magee
Not that they are (perhaps I should say ‘he is’, Paul Mason, the writer of this piece) wrong about the end of Capitalism, the writing has been on the wall for that for quite some time. But you can’t end ‘something‘ and then call whatever replaces it ‘post-something‘. It neither makes sense nor grabs the attention. It simply means ‘what comes after‘ or ‘the absence of‘ something, which could well mean ‘nothing‘.
‘Nothingism‘, is that what we are being led to expect?
There has to be a meaningful name for what comes after Capitalism …and it has to be a real something, not an absence of something. What could it be?
Well, I will tell you what it won’t be. It won’t be anything even remotely like what this article suggests, which is a Techno Utopia where through the wonders of Information Technology nobody has to work. It’s all automated, don’t you know. And don’t expect to see the proposed ‘new kind of human being’ slated in the article. I wouldn’t be holding my breath to see the dream neighbour, the ideal friend, or beautiful people everywhere, or what he calls a ‘sharing economy‘.
Does this guy not know that with the collapse of the Capitalist paradigm, already teetering, and whatever it is (I can think of a number of things, acting jointly or severally) that provides the impetus to pass the necessary tipping-point-of-no-return, everything else (society, commerce, finance, economy, industry, agriculture, you name it…) will inevitably collapse in a heap as well.
In that very same moment, Information Technology will become a historical concept, fondly remembered for a short while and then forgotten completely and forever. Technology – the same. Jobs – the same. Money – the same. Processed Food – the same. Take-away – the same. Everything, physical or virtual, made by the current society – the same.
So, where is the Techno Utopia spoken of in this article going to come from? Listen carefully – IT ISN’T COMING.
Maybe I hit the nail on the head earlier when I flippantly suggested that the next new thing would be Nothingism. No, that can’t be. But what’s a word that describes living simply, living locally, producing your own food-shelter-clothing, caring for and sharing with your nearby friends and neighbours, your local community? I’m not sure there is a name for that. Localism? Maybe. It doesn’t seem to cover everything I am envisaging. Sharingism? Maybe. Whatever that is. There would have to be a more fitting, less forced, word that carried the same meaning.
Maybe there doesn’t need to be a name. Maybe it’s the end of -isms.
This is by far the best depiction I have yet seen as to what has actually been occurring with regard to global warming over the last 160 years or so. It is perfectly and undeniably clear that global temperatures have overall been rising consistently but at varying rates, in bands of time, over that period.
The colour scale on the right, marked off in 20 year blocks of linear time, intentionally has no scalar relation to the graph. That much should be obvious. It is there purely so that we can view bands of time by their colour. The colour is meaningless but it is clear that there are bands of colour (even though the colours change gradually over time) in Mauves, Blue-Greens and Yellows.
Note that these are monthly global average temperatures and the zero line represents the baseline pre-industrial level. It is not 0°C. It is whatever the calculated global average temperature was prior to the start of the industrial revolution. The scale on the left then shows temperatures in °C above or below that baseline. Actual temperatures are immaterial. It is the deviation from the ‘normal’ baseline, the zero baseline, that we are interested in.
Note also, that this is a time-series graph, a continuous line, starting from some undecipherable (to my aging eyes) point in 1850 right through to March 2016. For convenience of viewing, the line goes from left to right (Jan to Dec), exits at the right hand side in mid-Dec and wraps around back to the left hand side still in mid-Dec (as you would expect).
There, that’s all of the mystery taken out of the thing now. Everybody should be able to understand what is going on (even those dim climate deniers). Now, let’s take a look at what it is telling us.
The sections of the line (remember it is continuous and the colour of the line changes, as time goes on, in accordance with the colour/time scale on the right) that are coloured in Mauves, indicate the temperature movements during the earlier part of the period from 1850 to around 1900. It shows that there was considerable variation in temperature back then with some of the readings indicating that there were times when a drop in temperature to as low as -0.5°C below pre-industrial levels. A careful look however, will reveal that there are about as many monthly readings above the baseline (zero level) as below it. Indeed there are some readings from these years that are as high as 0.7°C above baseline. I would suggest that this is the sort of variation that could be expected to be seen in the second half of the nineteenth century because the large scale industrial activity of the twentieth century had not yet begun and the global population was still at ‘normal’ levels ie. below 2 billion.
The line colour variations from blues to greens cover a longer 80 year period between 1900 and 1980 and it is obvious that the readings are still quite variable but there are many more of them above the baseline than below it and the blue-green band does generally appear to sit above the mauve band. This indicates a slight rise in average temperatures during this period over the previous one.
The yellow coloured portions of the line cover a much smaller timeframe of just 35 years from 1980 to today. There is a much wider spread of these fewer readings (which is remarkable in itself, because it shows that something is happening, relatively quickly), pretty much all of them being both above the baseline and also above the blue-green band. This indicates a much more volatile period of temperature change where the majority of the readings are higher than either of the two earlier colour bands. What is more, the latest readings (the last few years) appear to be breaking away to form a new band by themselves that is way above the average for even the short yellow period …and that is very worrying (not that there is anything we can do about it).
I think we are entering a new period of runaway global temperature rises that could well mark the end of our journey on Earth. And it is all our own fault.
I am equally sure that there will be those who say “Ah yes, but there has always been variation in global climate. It naturally goes up and down”.
True, but those natural variations are gradual. Any movement upward or downward taking place over centuries or millennia, not 30-50 years. Believe me, this is something different.
Oh, and by the way, remember the COP21 Paris agreement with its (what did they call it? Aspirational?) level of 1.5°C? Well take a look at the chart. We have already as good as reached that, unless my spectacles are a little misted up. And their 2°C ceiling? Give it another five years and even that will be history. Then sit back and watch the fireworks show begin.
Added after publishing.