Climate Alarmists Are So Uneducated

[Anti Federalist]

You guy should have heard the guy from some national carbon tax "think tank" on Washington Journal this morning. I sat with my mouth open half the time; I couldn't believe the crap he was spewing. It seemed clear from what he said that the whole carbon tax deal is part of the UN's Agenda 21, right down to him talking about people needing to move in from the rural areas to conserve energy. Energy costs are going to soar from what he said and he was mighty glad about it.

We are in for a rough ride.

No doubt.

And the man made global warming crowd around here won't even admit that the endgame is global government and total control over everbody.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Tipper Gore thanks you for your message. Keep the money flowing.

Fucking Travlyr. You can't say I didnt try.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Fucking Travlyr. You can't say I didnt try.

What the heck kind of forum was that over there anyhow? It looked like a video game forum or something. And with all of those weird screen names and slogans and whatnot.

That's a pretty long thread but I read it. Lots of discussion nonetheless. Some, good. Some scwewy...

 

[Origanalist]

Fucking Travlyr. You can't say I didnt try.

That one wasn't hard to see coming.....

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

No doubt.

And the man made global warming crowd around here won't even admit that the endgame is global government and total control over everbody.

Whether global warming is a promulgated or real crisis, the government is using it to enact total control on every human being on the planet. That's the argument I have been making, and nobody's been able to refute it. It's just the normal 'you're a neanderthal flat earthing terrorist extremist Hitler if you believe in freedom' nonsense from the intellectuals.

 

[Tpoints]

No doubt.

And the man made global warming crowd around here won't even admit that the endgame is global government and total control over everbody.

I admit there are people who have an end game, doesn't mean I'm with them.

 

[Tpoints]

At my age, I am sick of fear mongering to sell a product. When I was in grade school our teachers had us ducking under our desks to protect us from nuclear attacks. DUCKING UNDER OUR DESKS TO PROTECT US FROM NUCLEAR ATTACKS. The nuclear attacks never came and the fear-mongering has never stopped. Turn your TV on and watch FBI, CIA, and the Police busting down doors pointing guns at innocent people and pretending that they are the good guys and gals. Hawaii Five-O is a classic example as is BONES, Criminal Minds, and Numbers. They constantly sell fear. And we should fear the FBI, CIA, IRS, EPA, NSA, WTO, WHO, NWO, IMF, FRS, and all the agencies that benefit from counterfeit fiat. They are all selling fear. The climate change people are selling fear too.

I am sick and tired of FEARMONGERING.

Al and Tipper have gotten wealthy off of the climate scare. Sorry if that fits your agenda. It does not fit mine.

Greening the planet with industrial hemp is an honest attempt at reducing CO2 while increasing Oxygen. But it is illegal to grow. What does that tell you?

you think I like fearmongering?

 

[John F Kennedy III]

What the heck kind of forum was that over there anyhow? It looked like a video game forum or something. And with all of those weird screen names and slogans and whatnot.

That's a pretty long thread but I read it. Lots of discussion nonetheless. Some, good. Some scwewy...

RevBox? Lol.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

That one wasn't hard to see coming.....

I know. I even said it in thread this time instead of PM. He lets his anger turn him into a bumbling jackass.

 

[Natural Citizen]

RevBox? Lol.

No, I meant the one you started this thread with. You could have wiped the floor with some of those arguments I read over there. Although there were some good points made none of them addressed the fact that we are stardust. As far as "the weather" , man is the Universe. The universe is man. That's the end game in the true sense of the word. God, if you wish. If not then that's ok too. I guess. It's a little ways passed those temporary clouds that we have in the way here that are put up to block man's sight to that reality. And it's a infinite connection...you see? Global warming is not the argument to be made. At least as far as man's connection to it.

Think of it like this.



Edit... actually don't want to wipe the floor with them, per se. Just want to wake them up to the reality of man's connection to..."the weather". Move beyond artificial realites that exist only for the sake of survival...or growth (because these entities who actually are destructive do not eat, breath, sleep, walk or talk) of the artificial entity who like to call itself man...as if it is...which it isn't.

We're just a speck. "Global Warming" meme is squabble relative to the dependency of the artificial entity in man's clothing (think 14th amendment) who isn't really man at all and is the real problem as far as disrupting the nature of it all. Frank Luntz type speak to be clear. But man win's ultimately. No bailouts in the infinite. Nope. That's a natural phenomenon. Don't be fooled otherwise.

Man is good to go. He's in good favor with the Universe...or "The Weather" if you wish. Free energy, so to speak. To discuss man's connection with the Universe in terms of "global warming" is like going to your favorite steak house and ordering a set of tires. Does not compute. And it's not meant to compute. So...yeah. Unplug that meter. That's an artificial circlejerk of sorts not relative to and meant to remove discussion away from the natural rotation of the Universe which just happens to lay at the very heart of the matter we're discussing here.

Of course, then again, we're so scwewy as to let these artificial men now play around with our genes too and without contestation. Next, they'll be putting a patent on man himself. So...I guess just because they can't jive with the Universe then they think we shouldn't be able to either. Can't believe the dummies didn't support prop 37. They do it to themselves. So...pardon me if i say they deserve what they get.

 

[wrestlingwes_8]

i said that plants and soils can store carbon only up to a certain degree.
an ecosystem is not a one way consumer of carbon. otherwise our soils would be already made out of pure carbon.

there is a certain amount of carbon the soil can store. and not more. an untouched ecosystem is therefore in balance (the exact quantity of this carbon cycle is to find on the wikipedia site of soil respiration to give one random source).
of course increased woodland will store additional co2. but only up to a certain degree. if you've ever been to britain or the netherlands or germany you'll know that it will be hard to increase those greenland areas in those regions. and if you take into account that the world population is fastly rising which means that we will need additional farmland instead of woods and cities all over the world are expanding i'd say that this theory will not be the solution for the problem. but actually people have calculated those possibilities already. on the german wikipedia site you'll even find the amount of carbon which could be stored via reforestation.

there are studies by the university of basel and the Paul Scherrer Institute which show that trees are emitting addtional co2 through soil respiration. so it is not stored in the soil it's given back to the atmosphere.

and here i'll give you a link and a source:

http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/jan02/feature_carbon.html

and here i'll give you an article from the max planck institute and the possibilities of additional greenland and Carbon sinks and that they cannot solve the problem (in europe):

http://www.mpg.de/478875/pressemitteilung200305262

and at the end a little experiment with co2 and it's effect on the atmosphere:

Not even sure why I'm trying anymore, you refuse to listen. Sure, the soil can only hold so much carbon per square foot BUT there is no limit to the amount of humus and top soil that can be added to the ground. Look at the peat bogs of Ireland; the humus there has piled up over the years and now it's a few feet deep. When a landscape is designed and managed using permaculture techniques, there is no limit to the amount of carbon that can be sequestered into the soil.

Also, the amount of CO2 being released in the soil via plant roots is MINISCULE compared to the amount of CO2 that is bound up as carbon in the soil. Quit trying to distort the facts in favor of your argument.

Furthermore, you claim there just isn't enough land to make carbon sequestration via tree planting practical. WRONG AGAIN! Since 1990, HALF of the world's rainforests have been cut down. So a good place to start would be to restoring these natural habitats. Some areas won't be able to because of human settlements but a majority of the acres are just sitting barren. Also, 1/3 of the world's land mass is covered in desert. Geoff Lawton, a permaculture designer, has successfully been able to grow figs and other fruit trees only a few miles from THE DEAD SEA. University professors said it was impossible; the land was salted beyond repair, no agriculture would ever work they claimed. Well, Geoff proved them wrong! Permaculture can take ANY landscape and turn it into a productive area for plants and animals. So, as you can see, we have MORE THAN ENOUGH land for the sequestration of carbon.



You also claim that more area will need to be cleared for food production...WRONG! It is our current agri-industrial approach to growing food that is limiting our food production. I've seen people design an area one acre big that produces more food than 1,000 acres of corn does.


Next time, don't pretend you know what you're talking about because you took 30 minutes to Google some bullshit. The sequestration of carbon via planting trees is OUR BEST OPTION for reducing global CO2 amounts, END OF STORY!

 

[Natural Citizen]

Wow. Spot on. Didn't expect anyone to bring that up. There are actually a few different option one could consider when thinking about maybe turning a given desert into a plush landscape.

 

[vienna]

Not even sure why I'm trying anymore, you refuse to listen. Sure, the soil can only hold so much carbon per square foot BUT there is no limit to the amount of humus and top soil that can be added to the ground. Look at the peat bogs of Ireland; the humus there has piled up over the years and now it's a few feet deep. When a landscape is designed and managed using permaculture techniques, there is no limit to the amount of carbon that can be sequestered into the soil.

Also, the amount of CO2 being released in the soil via plant roots is MINISCULE compared to the amount of CO2 that is bound up as carbon in the soil. Quit trying to distort the facts in favor of your argument.

Furthermore, you claim there just isn't enough land to make carbon sequestration via tree planting practical. WRONG AGAIN! Since 1990, HALF of the world's rainforests have been cut down. So a good place to start would be to restoring these natural habitats. Some areas won't be able to because of human settlements but a majority of the acres are just sitting barren. Also, 1/3 of the world's land mass is covered in desert. Geoff Lawton, a permaculture designer, has successfully been able to grow figs and other fruit trees only a few miles from THE DEAD SEA. University professors said it was impossible; the land was salted beyond repair, no agriculture would ever work they claimed. Well, Geoff proved them wrong! Permaculture can take ANY landscape and turn it into a productive area for plants and animals. So, as you can see, we have MORE THAN ENOUGH land for the sequestration of carbon.



You also claim that more area will need to be cleared for food production...WRONG! It is our current agri-industrial approach to growing food that is limiting our food production. I've seen people design an area one acre big that produces more food than 1,000 acres of corn does.


Next time, don't pretend you know what you're talking about because you took 30 minutes to Google some bullshit. The sequestration of carbon via planting trees is OUR BEST OPTION for reducing global CO2 amounts, END OF STORY!

quite a disrespectuful and ofensive person, aren't you?

the amount of humus an ecosystem can produce is NOT unlimited. it's simply wrong that it could produce endless amounts of humus.
if it would be that way ... nature would have done so, right? but the amount of humus is dependent on a number of things like climate, water, etc. a peat like you mentioned can only exist under certain circumstences.
let's start with the basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_horizon
as you rightly mentioned ... it took nature hundrets and thousands of years to create those bogs in ireland. it didn't happen over night. and it happened under certain (wet) conditions which only exist in some places in the world. for example in northern europe, in one of the most densly populated areas of europe. good luck setting it under water again.

in untouched natural areas the humus layer can be at max. 3 soil horizons thick (source: Bodenkundliche Kartieranleitung, 5. Auflage, Hannover 2005).
another question ... where does the humus come from? is it created naturally? ... because if so ... it'll take centuries to regenerate natural bogs. which would be a good thing anyway if it could be done. and still it wouldn't be enough.

ok. so there goes again another one of your theories... let's eliminate the next one.

the reforestation of the rainforest. yeah ... good luck with that. everybody wants that besides a few people who actually don't care and cut it down. tell them they should stop.

and then we make the desserts green. good luck creating your irish peat in the sahara dessert with your unlimited thick humus layers.
you know what? it'll cost an "unlimited" amount of money, time and energy if you will do it the way it was done in this little piece of land. but still it'd be great to make the desserts green.
i'm all for it. it would take centuries, unthinkable amounts of money and workforce to make the sahara green, i don't know where you'll take all the water from ... which is already lacking in some of those areas ... but still ... i like the idea.

the max planck institute actually looked up the possibilities for europe. well, no chance that with reforestation and similar solutions you could solve the problem.

growing trees for sure is a way to reduce the co2 amount in the atmosphere. but they do it already. and it's not enough. in austria the land covered by forests increased over the last decades. and it did so in other regions of europe and the world. including the us i think.

there are MANY things people have to do. not one thing. and it wont help if you live in fantasy land.
what is needed are pragmatic and doable solutions for the short and the long run. in all possible ways. not just one way.

as an architect i'd say that there are huge amounts of possibilities to reduce the amount of engergy an average household needs. to name one example.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

quite a disrespectuful and ofensive person, aren't you?

the amount of humus an ecosystem can produce is NOT unlimited. it's simply wrong that it could produce endless amounts of humus.
if it would be that way ... nature would have done so, right? but the amount of humus is dependent on a number of things like climate, water, etc. a peat like you mentioned can only exist under certain circumstences.
let's start with the basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_horizon
as you rightly mentioned ... it took nature hundrets and thousands of years to create those bogs in ireland. it didn't happen over night. and it happened under certain (wet) conditions which only exist in some places in the world. for example in northern europe, in one of the most densly populated areas of europe. good luck setting it under water again.

in untouched natural areas the humus layer can be at max. 3 soil horizons thick (source: Bodenkundliche Kartieranleitung, 5. Auflage, Hannover 2005).
another question ... where does the humus come from? is it created naturally? ... because if so ... it'll take centuries to regenerate natural bogs. which would be a good thing anyway if it could be done. and still it wouldn't be enough.

ok. so there goes again another one of your theories... let's eliminate the next one.

the reforestation of the rainforest. yeah ... good luck with that. everybody wants that besides a few people who actually don't care and cut it down. tell them they should stop.

and then we make the desserts green. good luck creating your irish peat in the sahara dessert with your unlimited thick humus layers.
you know what? it'll cost an "unlimited" amount of money, time and energy if you will do it the way it was done in this little piece of land. but still it'd be great to make the desserts green.
i'm all for it. it would take centuries, unthinkable amounts of money and workforce to make the sahara green, i don't know where you'll take all the water from ... which is already lacking in some of those areas ... but still ... i like the idea.

the max planck institute actually looked up the possibilities for europe. well, no chance that with reforestation and similar solutions you could solve the problem.

growing trees for sure is a way to reduce the co2 amount in the atmosphere. but they do it already. and it's not enough. in austria the land covered by forests increased over the last decades. and it did so in other regions of europe and the world. including the us i think.

there are MANY things people have to do. not one thing. and it wont help if you live in fantasy land.
what is needed are pragmatic and doable solutions for the short and the long run. in all possible ways. not just one way.

as an architect i'd say that there are huge amounts of possibilities to reduce the amount of engergy an average household needs. to name one example.

I actually gave your post a try. It's clear you didn't.

 

[wrestlingwes_8]

quite a disrespectuful and ofensive person, aren't you?

the amount of humus an ecosystem can produce is NOT unlimited. it's simply wrong that it could produce endless amounts of humus.
if it would be that way ... nature would have done so, right? but the amount of humus is dependent on a number of things like climate, water, etc. a peat like you mentioned can only exist under certain circumstences.
let's start with the basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_horizon
as you rightly mentioned ... it took nature hundrets and thousands of years to create those bogs in ireland. it didn't happen over night. and it happened under certain (wet) conditions which only exist in some places in the world. for example in northern europe, in one of the most densly populated areas of europe. good luck setting it under water again.

in untouched natural areas the humus layer can be at max. 3 soil horizons thick (source: Bodenkundliche Kartieranleitung, 5. Auflage, Hannover 2005).
another question ... where does the humus come from? is it created naturally? ... because if so ... it'll take centuries to regenerate natural bogs. which would be a good thing anyway if it could be done. and still it wouldn't be enough.

ok. so there goes again another one of your theories... let's eliminate the next one.

the reforestation of the rainforest. yeah ... good luck with that. everybody wants that besides a few people who actually don't care and cut it down. tell them they should stop.

and then we make the desserts green. good luck creating your irish peat in the sahara dessert with your unlimited thick humus layers.
you know what? it'll cost an "unlimited" amount of money, time and energy if you will do it the way it was done in this little piece of land. but still it'd be great to make the desserts green.
i'm all for it. it would take centuries, unthinkable amounts of money and workforce to make the sahara green, i don't know where you'll take all the water from ... which is already lacking in some of those areas ... but still ... i like the idea.

the max planck institute actually looked up the possibilities for europe. well, no chance that with reforestation and similar solutions you could solve the problem.

growing trees for sure is a way to reduce the co2 amount in the atmosphere. but they do it already. and it's not enough. in austria the land covered by forests increased over the last decades. and it did so in other regions of europe and the world. including the us i think.

there are MANY things people have to do. not one thing. and it wont help if you live in fantasy land.
what is needed are pragmatic and doable solutions for the short and the long run. in all possible ways. not just one way.

as an architect i'd say that there are huge amounts of possibilities to reduce the amount of engergy an average household needs. to name one example.

You might think my choice of language is offensive but I find you ignorance on the subject offensive. If you were a botanist or a range management specialist, I might put some weight behind what you are saying but you're not. You simply Google something and then pretend to be an expert on the subject.

The fact that you think the humus layer can be divided into 3 different soil horizons PROVES you have no idea what you are talking about. The soil horizon that contains the organic matter is called the O Horizon. It can be sub-divided into different categories but not different horizons (and those sub-divisions are only for classification purposes).

You did get one thing right, however. In nature, many areas will be limited by the decay rate(amount of precip. and temps) as to how much humus can be produced. I am not talking about letting nature just run it's course, though. As I explained in the earlier post, in order to achieve the maximum effect, permaculture principles will need to be implemented. Of course, you won't see permaculture forests accumulating 50 feet of humus; when I said there was no limit to the amount of humus production, I simply was implying that more than enough would be produced to bring C02 levels back to what the climate alarmists call "normal".

Also, your claim that "no one will replant the rainforests" proves nothing. What if I, in turn, say no one will take the time to make their house more energy efficient, so your idea must be ridiculous? As you can see, it proves nothing and would only show I don't know what I'm talking about (since the steps that can be taken are extremely easy, as you would have pointed out being an architect and all). But I didn't say that because I don't pretend to know the practicability of something that I have little experience with.

You claim that greening the desert would take an "unlimited" amount of time and energy. Guess what, that example I just used in the last paragraph applies perfectly here. How can you claim something isn't viable when you have no idea as to the practicability of the endeavor? For instance, you don't even know where the water would come from so that AGAIN PROVES you know very little on this topic. To you, it seems almost impossible because you don't understand the mechanics behind designing a landscape using permaculture principles. When in reality, designing a landscape using these principles is extremely easy (after a learning curve is achieved) and takes very little money compared to other agricultural and forestry techniques.

I'll briefly take the time to explain "where the water would come from" so maybe you'll have a better understanding of what we are talking about. To begin with, you must understand what exactly a desert is; contrary to popular belief, it has nothing to do with temperature or type of vegetation. A desert is an area that has more evaporation than precipitation. When an area is turned into a desert, either by over-farming or natural cycles, the main factor keeping that landscape from following a natural succession pattern back to a forest is the lack of water hydration in the soil. Nearly every place that is considered a desert, receives at the very least 2-3 inches or rainfall per year. Most of this rainfall comes all at once, in two or three rain showers. Since the organic matter content of the soil is virtually zero, most of the precipitation either runs off or evaporates. Therefore, in order for the soil to support vegetation we need to find a way to keep this water from leaving the landscape. This is achieved through earthworks, such as berms, swales and keyline plowing. These structures help hold the water in the soil, allowing plants to grow, which in turn, creates organic matter in the soil further increasing the water holding capabilities. Once these earthworks are built, either by machinery or physical labor, and the perennial vegetation is planted, other than some general maintenance for the first few years, the area requires very little additional inputs (labor, time, money, etc.). This is a very simple explanation but I hope it gives you a general idea of how this works.

So even though to you it seems like a near impossible feat, greening a majority of the deserts would take very little time and money compared to the other options we have for SIGNIFICANTLY reducing CO2 levels. It would not take centuries to do; once built (10 people with a piece of heavy machinery could design and plant 10 acres in a matter of months [very rough guess-timate]), in 5-10 years these areas would be fully established and would last hundreds of years un-managed or thousands of years managed correctly. There is a food forest in Morocco that has been managed by the native people for at least 800 years.

That all being said, I completely agree with you in terms that we need a multi-pronged strategy when it comes to combating CO2 levels.

 

[vienna]

so now everything which is left from your theories is that you'd cultivate artificially/with man power millions of square meter of desserts and greenland and harvest cubic kilometers of humus. and still you'd have constantly rising co2 amounts in the atmosphere and an ecosystem wich is not in balance and dependent on artificial intervention. who will pay for the greening of the sahara dessert? you? the us? europe? egypt? 10 men will do it? i'll just say. 9,400,000 square kilometres alone the sahara dessert. multiply the amount of water used in the experiment you showed for this little land with the area the sahara covers.
welcome to fantasy land.

but guess what. as i already mentioned twice. for europe the calculation was actually done by the max planck institute. and they concluded that those things which can be done realisticly ... are not enough. there has to be done a lot more than reforestation. living in fantasy land wont do it. if you actually have a concrete and realistic plan how to do it. how much water, money, time, ... it'll cost and who will do it ... publish your ideas and let them be discussed. otherwise ...

thank you and good night.

 

[wrestlingwes_8]

so now everything which is left from your theories is that you'd cultivate artificially/with man power millions of square meter of desserts and greenland and harvest cubic kilometers of humus. and still you'd have constantly rising co2 amounts in the atmosphere and an ecosystem wich is not in balance and dependent on artificial intervention. who will pay for the greening of the sahara dessert? you? the us? europe? egypt? 10 men will do it? i'll just say. 9,400,000 square kilometres alone the sahara dessert. multiply the amount of water used in the experiment you showed for this little land with the area the sahara covers.
welcome to fantasy land.

but guess what. as i already mentioned twice. for europe the calculation was actually done by the max planck institute. and they concluded that those things which can be done realisticly ... are not enough. there has to be done a lot more than reforestation. living in fantasy land wont do it. if you actually have a concrete and realistic plan how to do it. how much water, money, time, ... it'll cost and who will do it ... publish your ideas and let them be discussed. otherwise ...

thank you and good night.

Like I've said before..not sure why I'm still trying with you. It is obvious you REFUSE to take the time to understand this basic concept.

What are you talking about harvesting humus for? Humus does not have to be "harvested" for it to sequester carbon. It just..well, sits in the soil, dude...seems like we are taking steps backwards here in your understanding...

Secondly, you OBVIOUSLY don't understand permaculture, even the slightest bit. If you think an ecosystem that has been designed using permaculture principles will be "out of balance", then you should really stop commenting on something you know nothing about. Permaculture produces landscapes that are, in many ways, more in balance than nature!! Also, like I stated in the last reply (if you actually took the time to read it, you'd already know this) a landscape that has been established using permaculture principles will STAND ALONE for hundreds of years by itself without intervention. It'll last thousands of years with only a few MINIMAL, yearly inputs. How many times are you going to make me explain this shit to you?

Who will pay for it? I don't know and I don't care. What I do know is that this is the CHEAPEST and MOST EFFECTIVE way to curb CO2 levels. PERIOD. I also know there are, at the VERY least, 1,000 people out there who are concerned enough about "global warming" or whatever, to drop everything and volunteer their time to an effort such as this.

Thank you for providing that figure of the amount of land in the Sahara. Now you can quit pretending there isn't enough land out there for the sequestration of carbon thru designing permaculture landscapes.

Not sure why you keep talking about the Max Planke Institute's study on reforestation in Europe? Last time I checked, CO2 doesn't adhere to borders between countries and continents. It's not like "global warming" is region specific to Europe. This is a global issue (if it even is an issue); meaning reducing CO2 ANYWHERE, reduces CO2 levels EVERYWHERE!! If there isn't enough land in Europe to be re-planted, there most certainly is in Africa, North America and Asia!!

And what are you talking about when you say "amount of water needed" or whatever??? I suggest you go back and re-read my last post because it couldn't be more clear you do NOT even come close to understand these concepts. AGAIN, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, nearly all the areas classified as deserts, receive at least 2-3 inches of precipitation each year. Even this tiny amount of rain is enough for a permaculture landscape to flourish.

I'm sorry and no offense but if your replies continue to be this ridiculous, I can only assume you are either trolling or not even taking 5 seconds to understand this...

 

[vienna]

ridiculous. so you are some deciple of permaculture, or what?
and now you think you are more clever and better then nature self?
jesus ...

but there is one sentence which explains all of your theories ...

I don't know and I don't care.

typical ... yeahh ... let's create an artificial/man made planet, because we are better then nature now. because, yeah man, we read a book about permaculture. it's the ultimate answer to every problem. you just have to believe in it. and in the meantime we can polute the way we want, because we are better then nature. all we have to do is to cover the planet with artificial interventions.
and because we made a course in "permaculture" we're smarter then nature itself. yeah man.

let's make the sahara green? for the 10th time. look at your video what they did to make that little piece of dessert green and multiply it with the area of the sahara dessert. and then let egypt and liberia pay for it, when in the meantime china, india and brazil are growing rapidly and polluting the atmosphere even more. have you seen how much water they needed and what they had to do to make that land green?

why i'm talking about the max planck institute. because they are not arrogant know nothings who read a book about permaculture and now think they are smarter then nature.

they actually calculated what can realistilcly be done. while you are living in fantasy land. but i recognize the fact that you read a book about permaculture and now you think you are better then nature.

 

[wrestlingwes_8]

ridiculous. so you are some deciple of permaculture, or what?
and now you think you are more clever and better then nature self?
jesus ...

but there is one sentence which explains all of your theories ...



typical ... yeahh ... let's create an artificial/man made planet, because we are better then nature now. because, yeah man, we read a book about permaculture. it's the ultimate answer to every problem. you just have to believe in it. and in the meantime we can polute the way we want, because we are better then nature. all we have to do is to cover the planet with artificial interventions.
and because we made a course in "permaculture" we're smarter then nature itself. yeah man.

let's make the sahara green? for the 10th time. look at your video what they did to make that little piece of dessert green and multiply it with the area of the sahara dessert. and then let egypt and liberia pay for it, when in the meantime china, india and brazil are growing rapidly and polluting the atmosphere even more. have you seen how much water they needed and what they had to do to make that land green?

why i'm talking about the max planck institute. because they are not arrogant know nothings who read a book about permaculture and now think they are smarter then nature.

they actually calculated what can realistilcly be done. while you are living in fantasy land. but i recognize the fact that you read a book about permaculture and now you think you are better then nature.

You really know how to test a person's patience, don't you? Do you purposely try to ignore any information presented to you in a discussion?

Not sure why you still feel the need to keep commenting on something you have proven YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT

The principles of permaculture are derived from OBSERVING NATURE and then applying those to a landscape. I NEVER ONCE SAID I KNEW MORE THAN NATURE! IN PERMACULTURE, YOU USE NATURE TO YOUR ADVANTAGE! ALL THE PRINCIPLES ARE DEVELOPED FROM THINGS THAT NATURE DOES!! You just spun what I said to fit your argument.

And go ahead and keep spinning my other points to fit whatever agenda you are trying to espouse. THE REASON WHY I SAID "I DON'T KNOW AND DON'T CARE" IS BECAUSE, LIKE I ALREADY SAID, IT IS THE CHEAPEST OPTION! But you just choose to ignore what I say and play little mind games. So sure, I'll play your game; WHO WILL PAY FOR ANY OF THE IDEAS FOR REDUCING GLOBAL WARMING?!?! How can you not see the holes in your arguments???

And WHY THE FUCK are you still talking about the water??? Seriously dude, I think there is something wrong with your brain. Do you think water is being pumped in from somewhere or what?? The water comes from the fucking sky when it rains! It soaks into the soil and is held there thru the use of swales, berms and keyline plowing (which surprise, surprise I ALREADY FUCKING EXPLAINED!!). I mean wow, how do you manage to get through the day using this kind of reasoning and logic????

I feel like I'm arguing with someone that is claiming the sky is yellow or some shit...

 

[vienna]

You really know how to test a person's patience, don't you? Do you purposely try to ignore any information presented to you in a discussion?

Not sure why you still feel the need to keep commenting on something you have proven YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT

The principles of permaculture are derived from OBSERVING NATURE and then applying those to a landscape. I NEVER ONCE SAID I KNEW MORE THAN NATURE! IN PERMACULTURE, YOU USE NATURE TO YOUR ADVANTAGE! ALL THE PRINCIPLES ARE DEVELOPED FROM THINGS THAT NATURE DOES!! You just spun what I said to fit your argument.

And go ahead and keep spinning my other points to fit whatever agenda you are trying to espouse. THE REASON WHY I SAID "I DON'T KNOW AND DON'T CARE" IS BECAUSE, LIKE I ALREADY SAID, IT IS THE CHEAPEST OPTION! But you just choose to ignore what I say and play little mind games. So sure, I'll play your game; WHO WILL PAY FOR ANY OF THE IDEAS FOR REDUCING GLOBAL WARMING?!?! How can you not see the holes in your arguments???

And WHY THE FUCK are you still talking about the water??? Seriously dude, I think there is something wrong with your brain. Do you think water is being pumped in from somewhere or what?? The water comes from the fucking sky when it rains! It soaks into the soil and is held there thru the use of swales, berms and keyline plowing (which surprise, surprise I ALREADY FUCKING EXPLAINED!!). I mean wow, how do you manage to get through the day using this kind of reasoning and logic????

I feel like I'm arguing with someone that is claiming the sky is yellow or some shit...

everything you propose, in an incredibly arrogant and offensive way, are interventions in nature. and an ecosystem which is not in balance:

but let's start with one of your many unfounded claims:

Not even sure why I'm trying anymore, you refuse to listen. Sure, the soil can only hold so much carbon per square foot BUT there is no limit to the amount of humus and top soil that can be added to the ground. Look at the peat bogs of Ireland; the humus there has piled up over the years and now it's a few feet deep. When a landscape is designed and managed using permaculture techniques, there is no limit to the amount of carbon that can be sequestered into the soil.

of course ... you have to correct your argument with this one:

Of course, you won't see permaculture forests accumulating 50 feet of humus; when I said there was no limit to the amount of humus production, I simply was implying that more than enough would be produced to bring C02 levels back to what the climate alarmists call "normal".

let's quote a hilarious contradiction of yours (nearly within the same sentence):

Secondly, you OBVIOUSLY don't understand permaculture, even the slightest bit. If you think an ecosystem that has been designed using permaculture principles will be "out of balance", then you should really stop commenting on something you know nothing about. Permaculture produces landscapes that are, in many ways, more in balance than nature!!

In nature, many areas will be limited by the decay rate(amount of precip. and temps) as to how much humus can be produced. I am not talking about letting nature just run it's course, though. As I explained in the earlier post, in order to achieve the maximum effect, permaculture principles will need to be implemented.

It'll last thousands of years with only a few MINIMAL, yearly inputs.

now ... your artificial landscapes are even more in balance then nature and "only" need a few yearly inputs? lol
so let's not even mention your rather ridiculous argument of the irish peat anymore and let's get straight to the point:

ad 1. humus:
the first thing i'd like to hear from you right now are sources for all of your claims.
how much humus would you produce more every year from now on and how much extra carbon would it store?
how much area would you need?
where would you do it?
how much money and resources would it cost you and how expensive is it to maintain? and who will pay for it?

for every claim of yours i want to have a credible source which is not yourselve.

ad 2. deserts:
let's start by mentioning that right now an estimated 12 million hectar of greenland get lost to desertification every year (source: http://opus.kobv.de/btu/volltexte/2007/343/).
so the first thing you have to prove to me is how much resources and money will be needed to at least regreen 12 million hectars of desert a year.
and who will pay for it provided the fact that most of these deserts are in developing countries (because in western europe and also the usa reforestation is already practiced for years). alone in austria we have thousands of people managing those areas.

now here we have such a project in the sahara. in the first step they will green 20 ha of desert and produce vegetables it'll cost around 80 million euros.
they need to build desalination plants to get enough water. harvesting rainfall water is just not enough. it may work for some areas. but not for every area. and even in the experiment you showed it wasn't done that way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/02/alternativeenergy.solarpower

so here we go. bring me the sources for all of your claims.
the first thing i'd like to hear from you right now are sources for all of your claims.
how much desert area would you regreen every year from now on and how much extra carbon would it store?
where would you do it?
how much money and resources would it cost you and how expensive is it to maintain? and who would pay for it?

in the end i want to see a concept and an estimated calculation by you which showes that not only you are able to balance the desertification and the loss of forests and other greenland per year, but you are also able to balance the constantly increasing output of co2 every year. and how and where you'll do it.

for every claim of yours i want to have a credible source which is not yourselve.