Climate Change Is Wreaking Havoc With The Truth At The Expense Of Our Children’s Future

The mainstream media are the worst liars of all

Here’s some dialog on a Healthy Climate group discussion that reveals how just utterly un-natural Nature can be.

What follows is cut and pasted from some recent Healthy Climate Google group correspondence that helps to tell the real story of my work and how the truth has been trodden upon ruthlessly by The Journal Nature, mainstream media, and social media for 6 years.  This story begins with a post by Robert Tulip (a friend indeed, though we have never met). There is a good bit here about the true legal status of my technology by legal expert Peter Jenkins. Both point out, chapter and verse, the scurrilous and defamatory nature of Nature.

The cost of the intentional pernicious promulgation of lies over truth comes with devastating worsening of the global envrionmental crisis of climate change and ocean collapse. The reason? Follow the money.

My response on this threat is at the end of the thread.

***************

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Robert Tulip <robert@…> wrote:

Dear HCA (Healthy Climate Alliance)

The debate about climate restoration is constrained by unclarity and mistakes in broader public policy discussions on climate change. To illustrate this major problem, I have written this review of a Comment piece just published by the prestigious science journal Nature. I would welcome any suggestion on sharing this further if the questions I raise prove valid.

Errors to confuse

The Nature Comment, International Law Poses Problems For Negative Emissions Research (June 2018), presents an excellent summary of current official and mainstream scientific thinking about carbon removal and implicitly about climate restoration. While presenting some sound points, the Comment mixes these with the error and confusion that unfortunately currently dominate discussion on climate policy. Going through these problems systematically is well worth while.

The opening sentence claims that Carbon Dioxide Removal activities are “aimed at achieving a net reduction in GHG emissions.” That is simply wrong, and should be corrected by Nature. CDR is completely separate from emission reduction, aiming only to remove carbon already in the air and sea. The paper’s statement misses this basic conceptual distinction between carbon removal, dealing with past emissions, and emission reduction, slowing the rate of future emissions. It is surprising that Nature’s review process could miss such a mistake, but sadly that failure reflects the confused state of climate politics.

The next sentence in the Nature Comment is equally wrong, arguing that “a path of rapid decarbonisation might still achieve the Paris Agreement’s target.” The fact is that decarbonisation can only reduce future emissions, an outcome that falls well short of achieving warming targets, which will be missed unless already accumulated carbon is removed, at much larger scale even than the misleading concept of net zero emissions.

Business as usual

At present, Business As Usual would deliver emissions of about 60 GT CO2e in 2030, and all the decarbonisation agreements of Paris would cut that annual emission figure by less than 10%, to about 55 GT addition of CO2e per year, according to this graph taken from the New York Times. I should note, various sources give different numbers, according to whether CO2, CO2e or carbon is measured, with projections altering over time. The lack of clarity in the Paris totals is part of the political difficulty and raises questions why these headline global numbers have been so buried.

The Paris decarbonisation path is massively short of achieving its warming targets, leaving aside the massive political conflict against the fossil fuel industry that the decarbonisation program would first have to win. The reality is that decarbonisation can only achieve the Paris warming targets if augmented, indeed vastly outweighed, by CDR.

Lies

The Nature Comment continues its false analysis by describing reliance on carbon removal as “a risky strategy”. In the context where global warming poses massive risks, the risks of removing carbon are far lower than the risks of not doing so, and in fact are necessary risks. Every strategy has challenges, but the ‘emission reduction alone’ strategy advocated by some is vastly more risky than CDR. So the risk analysis in this Comment is misconceived.

Then, in speaking of whether research is “socially acceptable”, the Comment makes a further failure to compare this alleged social risk against real risk projections of climate change such as sea level rise, forced migration, Arctic melting, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss and coral bleaching. These should all be socially unacceptable on far vaster scale than small scientific trials. CDR technology deployment can mitigate these risks if validated by lab and field trials. Under any coherent ethical compass, CDR should be far more socially acceptable than the impacts of global warming. CDR involves only scientific research programs targeted at stopping those severe real problems, and should be supported by governments, against these false claims of excessive risk. Calling reliance on carbon removal risky plays into the political hands of those who are opposed to climate restoration.

Damned lies

All this Nature Comment negative and false analysis is then moderated slightly by a welcome call for direct public engagement with CDR research, although the undertone seems to be that the main public engagement could prove hostile.

It is true that some CDR proposals carry biological risks, but again, the Nature Comment does not adequately set biological risks against the counterfactual of what will happen without CDR, or the capacity for well managed scientific trials to assess these risks. It may well be that BECCS will fail because of costs and agricultural displacement. On the SRM side, Solar Aerosol Injection may prove only a stopgap to slow sea level rise. The only way to properly assess those factors is through well managed scientific field trials and incremental deployment. Scaremongering about risks is more a political than a scientific approach.

The statement in this Nature Comment that I found most important to discuss is that “it is critical that governance arrangements continue to emphasise the need to drastically mitigate CO2 emissions.” I recognise this is seen as motherhood orthodoxy among climate policy makers, but given the numbers mentioned above, showing that all Paris pledges can only slow the CO2 increase by 10% at best, this allegedly “critical” proposition should be on the table as something needing evidentiary analysis, including of its opportunity cost. It should not simply be stated as fact, since it begs the question of whether other strategies, especially rapid ramp up of carbon removal, could be a far better, quicker and cheaper way to deliver climate stability and restoration.

The next baseless assertion in the Nature Comment is that “all conceivable CDR options today could offset only about a third of emissions.” The authors must be unaware of prominent CDR discussion, such as presented by the prestigious Australian scientist Dr Timothy Flannery in his recent book Sunlight and Seaweed that algae forests on 9% of the world ocean could offset all emissions. Flannery’s argument, based on peer reviewed work by Ocean Foresters, easily refutes their claim. Similarly, a recent scientific paper on Iron Salt Aerosol indicates conceivable paths to offset all emissions. Perhaps they want to dismiss such analysis as inconceivable, but that would involve what is called the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. If they think these papers are inconceivable, the proper path is to engage with evidence, not to make groundless political statements implying such work does not even exist.

Continuing after this litany of errors, the Nature Comment then makes an apparent U-turn by saying research on carbon removal is urgent, including field tests. If they think that, it would help their case if they got the facts and strategic context right in the first place. It seems they are trying to curry favour with hostile critics by hedging this advocacy for field tests with unwarranted statements of support for climate orthodoxy.

Next, the main risk of not getting underway with CDR is described, somewhat confusingly, as undermining the expectation that CDR capacity will be available by 2030. The more important reality is that CDR and SRM research is needed right now to address the extreme risks of global warming and acidification, and should not be treated in this relaxed way just as possible fall-backs if emission reduction fails after the next decade.

Next, the Comment wrongly calls it an “advance” that the 2010 decision of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity sought “to prohibit geoengineering activities that may negatively impact biodiversity.” Far from an advance, this UN decision was a harmful backward step, which my reading suggests was designed mainly to safeguard the UN ideology of “only emission reduction”, contrary to its claims of being motivated by environmental concern. The backward attitude was then reinforced in 2013 by the London Convention on Dumping Waste at Sea, with its caricature of serious efforts to fix the climate as “dumping waste”.

Correcting the lies with truths

Next, the Nature Comment appears to mis-characterise the Ocean Iron Fertilization experiment run by Russ George, without naming him or the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation. First, they allege this experiment was “aimed at creating emission reduction credits”. That is a partial claim, distorting the objective in line with much of the uninformed and biased criticism this project has faced. Russ George has said the main aim was to bring back the fish, restoring biodiversity, and that carbon credits were only ever a secondary factor. Second, the Nature Comment says “there have been no known scientific ocean iron fertilization field tests since 2009”, apparently dismissing the Haida 2012 OIF test as unscientific.

The extraordinary scandal around the Haida OIF test is explained in this 3 May 2018 interview with The Ecologist. While there may be some errors in that interview, it does plausibly say, rebutting hostile claims that there was no official government or scientific engagement, that the Haida Salmon Restoration project was “funded by the Canadian Federal Government… with the support of the Canadian National Research Foundation, who was paying for 50% of the science costs.” Illustrating the toxic politics of climate change, it says “George’s collected scientific data was destroyed under Canadian federal warrant before the experiment could be completed for review.” Perhaps this data destruction by police helps explain why the Nature Comment does not include this 2012 experiment among its list of scientific trials of OIF?

There are grounds to question the Nature paper’s assertion that the London Protocol “rules were primarily developed with environmental protection in mind.” It appears more plausible that these rules were developed to send a chilling signal about Ocean Iron Fertilization, regardless of environmental protection, and were instead focussed more on the unstated political view that emission reduction is the only game in town and that geoengineering field work presents a serious challenge to the emission reduction paradigm for climate policy.

Nature has previously published wrong claims about the biodiversity impact of the Haida trial, so this Comment continues that political line. Last year, Nature stated “scientists have seen no evidence that the experiment worked”, a blatantly political rejection of the evidence about the salmon boom caused by this trial.

Despite all these complaints, I welcome this Nature Comment, since its assumptions appear to be widely accepted, and the opportunity to question them is a valuable way to help find out the facts about carbon removal potential. If any of my analysis above is wrong I would welcome correction.

My own work in CDR is focussed on Iron Salt Aerosol. Our discussions indicate that despite the strong scientific framework for this research, many of the pervasive political errors featured by Nature will continue to hinder progress in climate restoration.

Robert Tulip

***************

The true legal status

From: healthy-climate-alliance@googlegroups.com <healthy-climate-alliance@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of peter jenkins
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2018 9:48 PM
To: Robert Tulip <robert@……..
Cc: Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-climate-alliance@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HCA] Nature Comment on Carbon Removal

Robert, thanks for putting your review out for comment regarding the Brent et al. article on the international legal regime. Many of your factual corrections seem spot on – and helpful to inform those new to these debates. I don’t know the details of the Haida project that you address near the end, and you may be fully correct in your observations, but that section of your review appears less objective and more emotional than the earlier sections, thus less helpful. You may want to consider taking out phrases in the Haida project section like “extraordinary scandal,” “toxic politics,” “chilling signal,” and “blatantly political.” Readers like me who are not familiar with the (now-dated) Haida project details may be turned off by this accusatory language in contrast to your more factual tone earlier on.

Legal clarifications

Here are some clarifications on the International law regimes discussed by Brent et al. (I am a lawyer and have done some international law advocacy work): The Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) recommendations on geoengineering to its member nations are just that: recommendations. Nothing in any of the CBD decisions Brent et al. list is binding or enforceable law, although it still has some “soft law” force as a statement of the policy preferences of the international community. Brent et al. confusingly repeatedly refer to it as a “prohibition,” while also acknowledging “it is non-binding.” That is like saying one is prohibited from running a Stop sign but it is non-binding. Unless enforceable, statements of preferences by the CBD (a very weak, largely advisory, treaty) do not actually prohibit anyone from doing anything.

On the London Protocol, the allegedly “legally binding” 2013 decision, which is referenced by Brent et al. on the 2d page of their piece, as they note: “..is yet to come into effect.” Under that Protocol, it appears such decisions must be accepted by 2/3rds of the contracting parties and the 2013 decision still has not been (see Ginzky and Frost article, footnote 3, https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cclr2014&div=18&id=&page= .)
While it may yet be accepted and become binding, it is not now — just as a bill in the USA passed by the Congress does not become law unless signed by the President. So again, the London Protocol decision is not a prohibition.

Although in my view unfortunate, readers also should be aware that the United States is not a party to either the CBD or the London Protocol (on the former, notoriously the U.S. is the only non-party nation on the planet to the CBD, as is also the case with the similarly weak, non-binding, Paris Climate Accord, per Pres. Trump’s withdrawal one year ago; for more on the US and the complex London Protocol situation, see the EPA’s explanatory webpage: https://www.epa.gov/ocean-dumping/ocean-dumping-international-treaties#US%20LC%20Contracting%20Party ).

So, as a practical matter, such climate experiments conducted in the U.S. now would not run afoul of any U.S. or international law position. Such experiments still very likely would run into complex U.S. Federal and/or State law requirements, but that would depend on the location and circumstances of the experiment.

– Peter Jenkins, Biopolicy Consulting
www.biopolicyconsulting.com

*****************

My response

From: Russ <russ.george@… >
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 6:09 AM
To: ‘peter jenkins’ <jenkinsbiopolicy@…
Subject: RE: [HCA] Nature Comment on Carbon Removal – the whole truth and nothing but the truth

My thanks to Robert and others for helping to present the truth about the endless heinous lies and defamation by the Journal Nature. Nature has known for years that my Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation project was carefully and properly planned and conducted with the full participation and approval of the Canadian, British Columbia, Local, and Native governments. The work planning the project took more than 5 years.

Years of dutiful and careful planning

During those years of planning, every 90 days, details of the work on the business and scientific plan was dutifully filed in the quarterly reports the government of Canada required the Native government to file. Countless meetings and even more correspondence stands as witness to the faithful, honest, earnest, sound scientific and business planning of the effort. The Journal Nature has been fully aware of these facts for years, yet they publish the opposite.

The government(s) of Canada thought so highly of the scientific and business plan to ‘bring back the fish’ that they provided services and facilities of no less than 6 federal ministries to assist in the years of planning process and the ocean experiment itself. The very first thing the government of Canada did was assign top legal experts to consider the legality and the result of that was essentially identical to what has been made clear in the correspondance copied here. Ask yourself why are the lies about this work being ‘against the law’ continuing with Nature one of the most notorious liars, who profits from such lies?

As for ‘right and proper science’ the National Research Council of Canada paid for 50% of the salaries and costs of the majority of the scientific team which they required the final say in approving those hired for that work.  The  project was additionally approved following a nearly 2 year vetting process for federal Economic Research and Development funding equal to 41% of the expenses. Further a Canadian federal government bank guarantee for project capital finance needs was provided after more than a year of vetting. The Canadian export development corporation provided a Canadian sovereign guarantee to the business, the list of the true facts that testify to the business going forward precisely to the letter of the law goes on and on. Oh, and don’t forget the public meetings that were required by the government of Canada to be held more than a year in advance of the team setting to sea, so that the public could ask any and all questions and recieve honest answers to those questions. but hey who cares about due process, certainly not the Journal Nature.

It Just Works

The largest catch of salmon in all of history resulted. – CLICK TO READ MORE

What we saw following the success of the outstanding science and continuing to this day some 6 years later is the determined and contninuing lies, damned lies, and defamation of the people and the work and the success of the project by noone other than the prestigious mainstream media, New York Times, Scientific American, Guardian, Nature, the list is endless.

Life without passion is not life at all

As to the admonition of Peter in the content about who worries about emotions, I wonder what sort of ‘unemotional’ more ‘objective’ response to the devastating lies promoted and sustained for years by the so-called green and scientific communities, that are intent on falsifying history to this day, is appropriate. The truth and history of my Haida Salmon Restoration business all becomes clear in the name I and my native partners chose for the undertaking, it was abgout bringing back the fish ‘salmon restoration’.

It would seem that many are uncomfortable with the truth and propose that with their statements such as “I don’t know about the details of the Haida project…” they infer that the truth be balanced by the lies when considering the earnest and honest facts about me and the work. To accept that my and the native people’s hopes and dreams were crushed and continued to be crushed by the defamatory lies the of both mainstream and social media knowingly make seems to be what the writer would prefer. Losing faith and confidence in Nature… heaven forbid.

The ‘fish came back’, and they did so in the largest numbers in all of history in the region. That return to historic conditions of health and abundance of the North Pacific Ocean Pastures would have been continuing to this day had not the institutions of science and climate change, to say nothing of social media and academia, set upon the project with their lies and defamation.

How dare a small native village of 800 souls prove in the world’s largest and most successful ocean restoration experiment prove that it could be done by the weakest amongst us.

How dare that small village prove that tens of millions of tonnes of yesterday’s deadly overdose of fossil carbon could be inexpensively repurposed into hundreds of millions of additional fish, and of course the return of all manner of other marine life to historic health and abundance.

Let’s not allow objective honest reporting of the truth that points clearly to the liars lead to one getting emotional about the lies and attacks to destroy this vital work to save the planet.

Read more about how to follow the money to the climate industrial complex which might help explain the abhorrent nature of Nature.

The greatest threat to the environment is waiting for someone else to save it.

Russ George

><((((º>`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸><((((º>·.¸.·´¯`·.¸<((((º>`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.><((((º>

We Bring Back The Fish – www.russgeorge.net