There are plenty of good reasons to not like fossil fuels, mind you. But the carbon hockey stick is not one of them.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33618376

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33611485

Points: 6

# Comments: 0

If you look into the atmospheric carbon dioxide data, you'll observe seasonal up and downs with the low point that takes us back to around where the high point from about a decade earlier. This means that we could resolve the issue very quickly in a scenario where farms keep enough plants around to soak up the soil emissions during tilling and harvesting operations.

Alley cropping is just one option to do so, btw. As I explain in a separate article [1], any well designed intercropping scenario should do the trick. The point is to not have a wide open field with no plants that could keep the fungi alive, block the wind to keep the carbon dioxide around, and soak up the carbon dioxide.

It can't be perfect because of night emissions and because trees eventually lose their leaves in the fall, but we can do far better than what we're currently doing.

[1]: http://ddebernardy.substack.com/p/stop-climate-agenda-soil-n...

TL;DR for those who don't click links:

- Corporate green solutions are shams

- Promote gardening if you care about fossil fuels

- An accounting chicanery keeps natural emissions out of view

- The hockey stick is actually about canopy loss

- Switching to alley cropping would reverse it

Happy to answer questions.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33610188

Points: 3

# Comments: 5

TL;DR for those who don't click links: Corporate green solutions are shams. Promote gardening if you care about fossil fuels. An accounting chicanery keeps natural emissions out of view. The hockey stick is actually about canopy loss. Switching to alley cropping would reverse it. Promote food sovereignty if you care about ending oppression. Share this if you’d like to do your bit. Also, we need some help: can you offer work, support, or a retweet [1]?

[1] https://twitter.com/ddebernardy/status/1591198286790418432

Happy to answer questions over the WE.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33567831

Points: 7

# Comments: 1

This is a TL;DR version for readers who only read discussions. The link is a summary of my short book, which you can read online at the same address.

What the book does is expose an accounting chicanery that underpins the fossil fuel narrative for climate change. In a nutshell, the carbon accounting framework separates land-based emissions from other emissions like fossil fuel, and builds on the idea that you can't do much about the former. This is actually false, as evidenced by forestry research, and it provides cover for land theft and ecofascism in developing countries. The book goes on to provide a soil-based explanation for the carbon hockey stick and its global desertification ramifications. Lastly, it puts bottom-up solutions in front of the problem that communities can implement now without depending on governments.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31353421

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Dumb money is pouring in, and institutional investors are riding the dead cat bounce.

For Boeing specifically, it's because they fired thousands of workers to cut their costs. And to their credit, they're actually expecting a long slump. Many businesses are still deluding themselves.

That seems like a rather murky assertion...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-tweet-chinatown-tou...

That assumes your immune system wouldn't kick in during the asymptomatic phase or a time close to exiting the latter. But your immune system would actually kick in as soon as it detects the infection, which would plausibly be much earlier. That would effectively buying you time to figure out which antibodies to produce before things become out of control.

https://lambdaschool.com/careers#jobs

https://imgur.com/a/XBzfOsF

Might your search history be so that you're so contrarian that Google suggests contrarian results? :D

Not just higher. The original article (the one out of China) that mentioned that there might be some positive effects reportedly suggested using doses that were a whopping 5 times higher than the usually prescribed amounts: 500mg/day vs the usual 100mg/day.

What more, the same article put forward that the drug was considered generally safe and without any potentially troublesome side effects. That raised more than a few eyebrows amongst the medical staff who knew the drug.

Previous discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=utf8everywhere.org

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22767807

Points: 275

# Comments: 124