Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser   

Featured

How "Sustainable" is my "Biomass"?

Details
Category: Green
Hits: 940

2024-08-29

"Biomass" (or "wood" to you and me) Is essentially the product of chopping down trees, and drying and pulping and pelleting them (using energy in the process).

The resulting nuggets / pellets / however you want to describe them are then shipped across oceans (using more energy) and burned in power stations such as Drax in Yorkshire (creating as much CO2 as from fossil fuel).

How is this more sustainable than just burning coal (or better yet gas or oil since these can be transported by pipeline whereas coal needs to be shipped like wood pellets)?

We might as well have created the same amount of CO2 from burning fossil fuels and left the trees alone to remove it, saving everybody much expense! 

And are we really replanting and regrowing the "biomass" sufficiently fast to replace the "biomass" that we are burning away? Is anybody checking, or are the loggers just coining it? And if fines really are levied, is that just a "cost of doing business"?

Obviously, it doesn't take long to fell a wood these days but it will take many multiples of the time taken to regrow the same - I don't know how long, but say only 5 times as long (to be rather generous to the "sustainable" fanatics). If we rotate growing and logging operations then we would need to dedicate in total 6 times the land area that would grow one year's "biomass" to make it "sustainable" - land that could have been used to grow food from all the extra CO2 that would have been produced from burning fossil fuels ... but now has to be used for regrowing the "biomass" destroyed.

And I would hazard a guess that 5 years to regrow is an underestimate ...

See what you think:

(12 minutes)

 

Like / Dislike this video here.

 

Big Pharma on the Ropes?

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 920

2024-08-29

Now that Trump has teamed up with RFK Jr, it looks like the gloves are finally coming off - and in public.

This goes back a long way.

How long? Probably as long as the 1918 flu pandemic in which (a) nobody could demonstrate transmission of the disease via "bodily fluids" (but boy, did they try!) and (b) more (US) soldiers reputedly died of the vaccine (the term warp speed hadn't been invented then but I don't doubt there was an equivalent) than died of battle.

More recently, the tetanus vaccine produced under the aegis of the WHO would seem to have something very "unfortunate" to hide - but as Mike Yeadon tends to say these days, maybe "mistakes were not made"?

I haven't any information about the tetanus vaccines used outside Africa, but Big Pharma's reputation being what it is ... why would they let investment in vaccine development go to waste?

(29 minutes)

 

Who Assesses my Benefits Claim?

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1046

2024-08-28

Well, according to Big Brother Watch, maybe nobody. It might all be handled by machines. If not now, then soon.

Does anybody know how the AI works? Nobody accessible to the public.

"Black box algorithms and secretive AI tools sit at the heart of the UK's welfare system - with little accountability. Our investigation offers a glimpse into life inside the UK’s poverty panopticon"

So here's a simple enough question:

If the tools of the process are opaque and protected by commercial confidentiality, how can the process be accountable to the public that it is meant to serve? And if not accountable, how is a realistic challenge possible?

I have postulated before that government is simply a vast Artificial Intelligence encoded on paper into statutes rules and regulations (not to mention "guidelines") that are (or inevitably become) horrendously complex (as they are tweaked to cover circumstances not previously identified or envisioned). They are very likely beyond the time-and-comprehension space of the vast majority of claimants (not to mention the officials and administrators charged with implementing them).

But at least being written on traditional documents (and capable of being printed), the rules-regulations-guidance could be accessed by mere mortals and subjected to scrutiny.

Now in as much as they are at least in part encoded within AI algorithms and defended by commercial confidentiality agreements (not to mention inaccessibility within corporate servers), for practical purposes they have been placed well beyond public scrutiny.

Meaning in effect that we have become the servants of those that control the AI - i.e.: the corporate interests, given the nod by "our" government.

See what you think.

 

Scott Ritter Reviews the Geopolitics of the Middle East

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 916

2024-08-27

One of the things I like about Scott is that he is generous with his time and gives it to minor interviewers as well as to the more high profile.

Here he gives a slightly stilted interview which doesn't quite feature his usual easy-flowing rapport with the interviewer, but he does present a very wide-ranging view of the state of play in the area, of western geopolitics, and indeed of internal national politics within the group of nations neighbouring Israel, and of Israel itself.

He is my go-to source for a reason.

(34 minutes)

 

Like / Dislike this video here.

The PCR Test, Covid, and Mpox

Details
Category: Covid
Hits: 968

2024-08-25

Interest of Justice have pulled together a nice video which goes into some simple detail about why the PCR Test is not actually and could never be a valid test for a disease.

The PCR process is not a test, but a process for amplifying a specific genetic sequence if it exists in a sample, The inventor, Kari Mullis, stated unequivocally that his process could not be used to identify an infection. There are a number of reasons for this which are mentioned in the video below.

(59 minutes)

 

As explained in the video, it's not about the details of cycle thresholds or anything else, its about the WHO's support of a "test" that is incapable of identifying an infection.

The WHO would doubtless agree that tests should never be used in isolation but as additional information to assist a competent physician to reach a diagnosis. Primary culpability therefore rests with governments health institutions clinicians and media who promoted the scare on the basis of test results alone.

Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible to explain away the Covid scam even if we assume that the test (whatever it's nature) is reasonably adequate for identifying an infection!

Download as A4, print it and share it!  Download as A5.

 

Page 236 of 382