A new twist to earth warming

The sun will get hotter, it will burn earth and water from earth will evaporate quicker to build a mirror for even higher rays from the sun.

That brings a new twist to earth warming, which has nothing to do with human activity or is it that the two work hand in hand, like a natural instinctive behaviour of humans that is programmed within their DNA?

This science article is frightening reading and should not be ignored.

Advertisements

The usefulness of snowmen

Or should I say snow person? One has to be so very careful about being discriminating and using the correct terminology to describe something. The word snowmen is actually deeply ingrained into folklore and common use; but so was the word postman, chairman etc.

Funnily enough I just thought about why the building of snowmen actually came about and even grown ups love to do it and I thought that most things we do come from very humble but once useful origins. So I thought, what could be useful about snowmen. I suppose it is the naturally build in scientist in me, with a little thoughtfulness at time.

Then I read this article about how snowmen could prevent flooding. I suppose that is a very modern day version of why snowmen were built originally. The building of snowmen nowadays could only prevent flooding if they were build in huge quantities and in various sizes  so that they melt in different time scales. That would also only be appropriate in areas where flooding is actually a danger.

What might have happened in ancient times though is that snowmen could have been used to preserve water. Because we did not have such plentiful water supplies as today and in times when water was scarcer to find people might have built snowmen to preserve a water supply. Just an idea.

Nuclear Fusion with France

The UK always favoured  partnership with France; even Henry VIII had a French henchman come over to behead one of his wives. The only thing that consoles me about the new nuclear project between France and the UK is the fact that Rolls Royce manufacture parts and with Rolls Royce we know we get precision.

Yet not even Rolls Royce can change the weather or the natural habitat of  the world around us. Of course nuclear energy is the short-term easiest solution and causes the least obvious visual disruption like so many wind turbines do but it will cause an outcry and take away all credibility of nuclear reactors should something adverse happen, which we do not hope.

Looking at the plans, as on the BBC publication, the reactors are spread around the UK isle.

The centre of England remains reactor free.

Do we deserve better?

I think we do; but seeing that each and every piece of fairly recent history is initiated by someone of Jewish descent makes modern world history a little bit of a headache. I tried to hint on it before, when I wrote about the lifestyle changes that the modern administration of this world brought with it.

We are coaxed away from independent lifestyles by removing people’s ability to farm for themselves, by making them dependant on other producers. And that has to be seen in the environmental context. I think humanity gets what they deserve and it is up to people to make the world their own, as it says in the bible.

There is no piece of alternative economy available today that does not originate from the current dynasty of the Rothchilds and that does not play into their hands. Very powerful indeed. There are only 4 countries left in the whole world that are not part of the Rothchild banking system. Those countries are systematically portrait as enemies in the Rothchild owned press.

I hinted on this before that the way banking works today it is creating a clash of sciences, in that Mathematics directly opposes Medicine for example because what Maths restricts is opposed by the results of medical advancement. But that is very scientific and too hard to understand for many.

But there is not one different method that apportions different values that are practicable. The current system promotes environmental damage and irresponsible human behaviour. There is no doubt about it. But we simply cannot go around and throw everything over just because we do not like it as it is. I think what could be done though is to look at banking from a Cartel point of view and appoint an international committee that will remove all those who are in post simply because of family connections and create a system whereby countries that are not part of the Rothchild empire can remain so and that the world-wide banking system will be scaled down rather than expanded even further.

Because as it says in the article, that the Rothchild Page links to, the Rothchilds do not even care who is in charge of any particular country, they hold the power strings in this world simply by using financial mechanisms and that is the key to the world’s problems. In that local autonomy has been destroyed by financial methods. It is most obvious to us, that regardless who is in power, whether left or right, we always have the same debt problems. We cannot progress because we are regulated by banking.

I do not one moment support any type of radicalism and certainly would not want any other religion than Christianity in my life but think that international politics and economics have worn themselves out and become unworkable and it is a matter of devising a system that is not within the current values but takes environmental factors into account more than it does now.

What we see now is the privatisation craze and anybody who owns their home is the good person, regardless how much they cost the community in health costs or other expenses, as long as they are part of the private ownership cartel they are good.

We need to develop a system that all those who genuinely suffer from a condition that is not of their own making get assistance but those who contributed to their own problems pay for their own problems. Unemployment  is in most cases not the fault of the unemployed but the fault of the economy that does not need employees. One has to draw a strict distinction between self-made health problems and unemployment.

I read recently in a book that some Libertarians blame people for all woes and put health and unemployment in the same bracket and say those who are unemployed are fully to blame for it, which is a lot of rubbish. We have been channelled into an economic system whereby we are totally dependant on the economy to progress and all our own ability to care for our basic needs have been removed. We no longer farm our own produce. In fact the state has systematically sponsored people from becoming more dependant and paid them to give up farming.

Bankers find it more convenient to allow mass production of things and leave us to sit at home and receive benefits as it is easier to calculate for them and heir financial systems how they can make profits. That is a truly egotistic reason and it can become very frustrating for those wanting to work but who cannot get a job.

Unfortunately there is no easy answer how to get a good change to come about, if that the holders of the strings of power are always the same closely related family then we have little to be proud of in terms of democratic freedom. A world council should disperse with the Rothchild empire for a start. At least they should have to declare accounts for all their business interest including the governmental ones.

But demonstrating in an anti-capitalist demo around St. Paul’s does not help, in fact it makes matters worst because the Capitalist system is self-regulating, we punish ourselves with the costs of demonstrating. That is a simple mathematical calculation. I shall look into this further and get back to you ASAP.

But just as I wrote the last sentence of this blog I read about a Daily Express Post in which Mrs Merkel thinks we could go towards a new war in Europe and that is definitely what we do not want. We cannot afford to bring this continent into a new war from which bankers benefit. We cannot afford another conflict that is simply driven by banking problems. Europe was driven into the ground and gotten weaker each decade because of war mongering and other continents significantly benefitted from this, especially China and India but the bankers rake in all the profits from this and they do not care about the rest of us. We must resist war at all cost.

the problem with Capitalism

there is a definite problem with Capitalism in that it does not necessarily guarantee excellence in the field of human performance.

If it is true that Saudi Arabia has spent 87 Billion US Dollars to promote true Islam we have to ask ourselves first and foremost how could Saudi Arabia get so much money and the answer of course lies in its oil wealth. Saudi Arabia made money from selling crude oil. Why could they sell crude oil? The answer is because Christian civilisation developed a technology that needs petrol to power it.

So Christians made Muslims so rich that Muslims now got the power to convince Christians that Islam is the best religion. Does it make sense so far?

You might say, why did we do that? Well that is a very good question. It seems that many people do things without being able or not willing to foresee the consequences of their actions.

Normally today all people with money are seen as good and all people without money are seen as questionable characters who have to prove that they are worth supporting and to prove that they are worth supporting they have to work for somebody who already has got money and can distribute it. Can you see the circular reference in this equation, sorry about the mathematical context here, that might not be everybody’s taste.

Lets give another example. Most people have children. One of the most favourite things to spend time today is watching films or other forms of entertainment. The actors and entertainers are famous and earn lots of money. A huge industry has sprung up to make money out of this again by starting agencies that teach children the art of entertaining. There are drama schools, acting schools, dance schools, ballet schools and other educational establishments of an artistic nature.To get your child into one of those schools you need money. Only the richest children can enjoy the fruits of their parents’ labour because they can afford to pay for the classes.

That helps the schools to pay for the upkeep and make a profit on the takings.Now lets look at the selection process for the classes. They do not look out for kids who are ideally physically suited to dance or hop or read or rock, they just look for kids with rich parents. Result, lots of art and drama classes with all kinds of very much loved children who have not got talent to become entertainers because they might be too fat, not artistic at all but their parents can afford to pay for them to attend the schools.This then produces actors who are put into productions, which prove a ratings flop, simply because the actors do not appeal to the public.

When we now go back the to petrol consuming inventions, we can see that making things that use petrol had a lot of different effects, the most catastrophic of which was earth warming because the burning of those fossil fuels causes a lot of damage to the environment. What effect do  you think it will have if the entertainment industry is taken over by lots of untalented persons who are simply entertaining because they can afford to pay for the classes? The fact is that any poor child that is good at art or dance could not make a career because they cannot afford it. So that all those medium talents would swamp the industry. (I don’t mean to offend, I am certain all those untalented artists are lovely people really).

We would see a decline in of the entertainment industry for lack of talent, just as we see a decline of our environment because of a reduction of air quality.

These are just 2 examples how capitalism harms our world. The question is why did the most developed civilisation on this planet develop such technology that harms the very environment we depend on for our very existence. Could the answer be space travel, so that we could try to find another planet once we have ruined this one?

I believe that we truly have to stop and think about what we are doing to ourselves and throw away the little boxes we have to put good and bad ideology into, we need to think what we are doing really hard.

Amazon environment activists killed

From this article that reports the murder of 2 prominent Amazon rain forest environmental activists it becomes clear that Brazil eased legislature on de-forestation of this important region of the world.

The Prince’s Rainforest Project raises awareness of the international importance of some regions of the world for the whole planet.

I think that countries who hold such international treasures,such as rainforest should be subject to an international panel of experts before they can make any legislation that affects those internationally important assets such as rainforest. The status of the Amazon rainforest will affect this whole planet and the earth warming we are already subjected to. Brazil now eased laws on deforestation. If each country in that region allows similar laws, we could see the disappearance of the Amazon rainforest within decades and that could have devastating results for the planet.

I am not sure why not more pressure is being put on World Health Organisations or other similar bodies to found an International organisation that has input on countries, making it compulsory to seek international approval before national legislation can be changed.

We are definitely sitting all in the same boat, I mean on the same planet and national sovereignty must come second when planet’s needs are overriding.

the case against nuclear power plants

is made by this latest earth quake, that struck at 8.9 richter scale off the cost of Japan. Even though nuclear power plants have shut down automatically, damage done by sudden natural disasters can have other effects that are not preventable by shut down.

guilt for nature?

this is a great article I found and I just want to link to it at the moment for further reference.

The cycle of waste

I can count myself lucky that I do not have one of those fancy double counting water meters, that do not only meter the incoming but also measure the outgoing water. Why, is that? It is because I am wondering whether it is worth recycling cans and jars that take a lot of water and effort to clean prior to recycling.

Would we not do more damage to the environment by too much water usage or would we do more damage to the environment by not recycling metal cans and glass jars?

I went to bring some old metal to the scrap metal dealer and ended up with some money in my pocket but when I have to clean out old cans and put them into the recycling, it costs me money and I do not even get a discount for recycling when I purchase a new product to replace the old one.

Especially products like peanut butter or chocolate jars, and even cans of beans, take a longish while to clean before the containers are fit for the recycling container. So is it worth it for me to heat water to loosen up the fatty peanut butter, so that I can scrape out the jar and clean it?

It costs me electricity, water and detergent to do so, not to mention the time spent doing it.  I am almost certain that many busy working people rather bin a can than find the time to clean it.

Yet my local scrap dealer was only too happy to give me cash for metal. I wonder whether it is not cheaper to crush up and collect old tins to bring them to the scrap metal merchant, who does not need clean metal to process it.

Just when I am in the mood to moan about the waste, I had to remove food from containers to compact them or they would have taken too much space in my freezer. Why pack food items in containers that are 3 times too big in the first place?

What would be a really good idea in my view, is the recycling of old furniture and especially those wood-chip, flat-pack buried, icons of old furniture we see often draped around waste bins. There is an awful lot of forest in the Amazon but there is also an awful lot of wood waste in our bins each and every day.

Do animals deserve fairness?

Breeds of domestic dogs

 

Just reading an article about Battersea Dogs Home and that increasing numbers of stray dogs have to be destroyed despite being healthy but for reasons of uncontrollable aggression.  

I have grown up in a classical farmers environment where animals were looked upon for human value and not for sentimental motions like they are pets that deserve our sympathy. Animals were kept with a minimum of comfort to the effect that they could be of use for human consumption or protection in the case of guard dogs.  

Now I live in this big inner city environment for the main part of my life and see the completely different relationship people have to pets and even wild animals in that animal cruelty plays a big part and some people are considering whether some animals deserve their own legal entity because they are found to  have high IQs.  

Yet do domesticated pets fair worst than those semi wild animals that live uncontrolled in our cities like foxes. Without doubt foxes, rats, other wild animals pose a threat to humans but they have never been domesticated and are mostly smaller than some dogs, that pose a direct threat simply because they are large and don’t hide away. Stray dogs would roam around freely and feel confident amongst humans whilst foxes and rats don’t. But the latter ones can gome out from the hiding places to attack humans on occasions.  

The fact is that large cities, which have strictly controlled social rules and contexts are often becoming more and more unable to cater for the old-fashion family dog in the city, that was left to roam free in the part, because decades ago there weren’t that many people and/or dogs.  

Today that is quite difficult, especially in inner London dogs have to be kept on leads, and there are quite a lot about. It must be difficult for an animals that cannot satisfy the animal instincts that are its main communication method and therefore it seems cruel to lock animals away in flats by themselves. They are bound to become very unhappy and aggressiveness is often the only way to communicate that unhappiness. Should we restrict the number of dogs allowed into human society by re-introducing dog licences after careful scrutiny of the prospective owners because the irresponsible keeping of dogs that then end up in the streets, posing a threat to humans has to be weeded out.  

Similarly should we have to take greater strides to also cull the voluminous amount of cats, foxes and rats, though it is impossible to control the movements of wild animals that travel freely around the country and can enter a town at their will.  

I think inner cities are not the place to take risks and stricter animal controls should be in place to both curb irresponsible dog ownership and the number of potentially dangerous wild animals that occupy our cities. Would foxes be driven into the cities to escape fox hunts in nature or does the absence of fox hunts provide a breeding ground for unreasonable numbers of foxes that will pose a threat because they cannot find enough food in the wild and will turn onto humans for food, especially in the cities.  

The larger picture of course is how much rights should animals have to survive on this planet, how important are they for the natural balance of this planet’s environment. Because in the end we humans need a well-balanced environment to be able to live in it and I do not think that we could survive in an environment that is not fit for animals to live in as animals make an important part of the bio-sphere around us. I do not think that we can synthesize nature to completely adjust the functionality of it to our sole will and cut out uncontrollable animals behaviour.  

Most of the time wild animal behaviour is predictable, in the case of bees we can predict their useful activity in pollinating plants, that grow food for us to eat but those bees are part of a bigger biosphere and we have to be very careful not to mess with this with fatal consequences.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits