Tuna collapse demands for pasture management not hunter regulation

(Wilfried Ellmer) #11


Russ, i am definitly following you on Twitter.

'What you have to tell to the world may definitly be one of the keys stones for human survival on an overcrowded blue planet.


If we can not get fourteen billon meals per day out of the sea as productivity base in a sustainable way in the next 50 years, mankind is doomed to perish in distribution conflicts. As only 1 out of 4 families will have food on the table.

…In July 2012, George … conducted an iron fertilization experiment spreading 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean from a fishing boat in an eddy 200 nautical miles west of the islands of Haida Gwaii…

@Russ_George | any insider comment - maybe on private message…

The salmon miracle was the result.

Nevertheless instead of giving Russ the Nobel Prize - harsh critics about “unauthorized geoengineering” set in.


Load of horse manure. ~1/3 of all food produced, worldwide, goes to waste. This does not include food consumed by over-eating. Just fixing that set of numbers and we can feed twice as many people, 15 BILLION, which isn’t expected for more than 80 years. THAT is JUST using current food production levels.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #13


Russ George deserves a Nobel Prize. What he has pointed at, is a solution how to save Humanity from starving.

• His critics operate under the false illusion that “business as usual” and “hands off geoengineering” is a feasible way" for the next 3 decades to come up.

• The madness is not in making a serious effort for ocean domestication the madness is thinking we can go on with “business as usual” in the next three decades comming up…

• The madness is not let science free and unrestricted to have “reasonable experiments” to improve the productivity of the ocean - the madness is to believe a “restriction of scientific and technological development” will make us safer. It will directly lead us to a situation where only 1 of 4 families has food on the table.

• If scholastics and a turning back on enlightenment and reason is going to become mainstream in politics a Oceanic Breakaway Civilization is the only adequate answer.

• An additional billion per decade no signifficant change on the horizon. Slowdown prognosis driven by hope for less children in industrialized countries all went down the toilet…

• Something signifficant in food production increase needs to be done and quick.

• Agriculture as we know it is already pushing its limits.

• Russ George is pointing in the only feasible direction…

• We live in a oceanic spaceship - each spezies extintcion event is like a rivet popping out of the life support sistem.

• Rivets are popping out on absolutly alarming rates since the early seventies when the human population had a "barley sustainable number of 3,5 billion

• Today we are at least 2 times above the “naturally sustainable rate of 3,5 billion” at the impressive number of 7,5 - some studies even suggest we are not only 2 times “above natural sustainable limit” we are already 3 times above it.

• This means geoengineering of the biggest habitat of the planet - the oceans - for food production is not only “on the table” it is a “urgent survival need” .

• We do not have the time for endless political tainted blabla anymore - we need to start DOING things now. We “need to take a shot” according to the best guess available. Just as your medic is giving you medicin althogh he does not know anything and everything about your body - and probably never will.

The planet and its fish populations are SICK - Russ George gives us a feasible and tested pill to cure ocean pastures - with an acceptable safety margin - not using it for political reasons - is highly irresponsible and a crime against mankind as it exposes us to a monumental food crisis.


Oceanic Transhumanism | Civilization class 1 capable to manage its home planet completly |
• Seasteading as key technology to manage the planet | heal and seed the ocean | farm the ocean | produce carbon neutral bio fuel on large scale |

(.) #14

It appears to me that the CO2 people want to keep the moral high ground.
Anyone else with a solution to C02, is not good for them. Too bad.

It is just like health care: the money is in the treatment, not in the cure.

Might be good to come up with some other scientific reasoning.
There are good plankton and there are bad plankton.

For example :

bad plankton: there are the dinoflagellate phytoplanktons with neurotoxins in them

good plankton: no-neurotoxins

When the ocean pasture is empty, the bad plankton has a chance to grow.
But when the ocean pasture is full of good plankton, the bad ones have a difficulty
to compete.

Well known, similar thing is intestinal bacterial flora. When an antibiotic treatment kills
the normal flora, the pathogens have a better chance. That is the way to get a
systemic fungal infection. It is just enough that some of the normal flora is killed,
and the other part of the normal flora becomes a pathogen.

In my opinion, leaving the ocean pastures without good plankton is a risk.

(Russ George) #15

It is perfectly clear that there is big money in preserving environmental crisis. The Paris Accord has plans to raise and redistribute trillions every year in climate taxes. The battle has been going on for decades to suppress the vision of the late great John Martin who very rightly did the research and the math before he declared that a single shipload of iron was sufficient to restore the ocean to do what it has done many times and that is to grow sufficient plankton to pull off the CO2 greenhouse gas blanket and cool the planet. He showed not only correlation but also causation. But restoring ocean pastures doesn’t need climate value to justify doing it to restore ocean life, fish, seabirds, whales, everything.

The head of the European Carbon Bank ten years ago came up to me at one of the major climate/carbon market conferences and said. “…that as much as he loved and approved of my work to bring back the fish. If only 10% of what I said might become real it would destroy their climate carbon banking business and thus they would oppose restoring ocean pastures.” He’s and his deadly cabal have been true to his words.

One clear tack in the battle to keep the oceans in crisis and on the road to death is creating fear over possible side effects like toxic plankton. This is the same as saying one should not treat any disease as there may be side effects of the treatment ignoring the certainty of the primary effects of the disease which is certain death to a vastly greater number of those who suffer and die of the widespread disease.

In all of the hundreds of years of study of natural ocean plankton blooms there is no concrete, conclusive research that shows any toxic blooms with bad side effects in the distant ocean where minerals are limited (that’s the only locations in the oceans where restoration can take place). Hazardous plankton blooms of import are exclusively found in near shore coastal zones where hyper stress exists as such waters are super nutrient rich and support a raging competing biodiverse ecosystem. Sometime the bad algae gets ahead and there is a ‘red tide’. There is no clear correlation of the domoic acid in distant open ocean side effect claims certainly no research that rises to the minimal level of showing causation. That’s the reddest herring of all purely political science. Just repeating a lie on the internet or wiki does not make it become the truth.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #16

@Russ_George |

The core problem is that in complex affairs, like ocean pasture management, everybody can present his “interest tainted opinion” to a thumb voter folk only interested in yellow TV and reality shows and gain elections on that base.

| Brexit | Chavez | Trump | what more examples of politics catastrophicly failing to deal with the complexity of our world and “taking good decisions” do we need.

The “natural interest” of the CO2 lobby to maintain the problem and convert it into an argument to create a politics of more taxation and more big government that “shovels political power to their interest group” instead of solving the problem is just another sad example.

Politics itsef has converted into a reality show of “panem et circenses” rendering serious cientific work and reason of argument frequently irrelevant.

What we need is responsible leadership and action…based on reason and science - not politics.

This makes your work of “doing something” and “pointing the practical finger at it” so important.

The size and nature of the experiment does not exceed what a healthy whale population (with its iron rich dumpings) would do with the ocean anyhow - if they would not have been driven to near extinction by industrial whaling.

I have a couple of practical suggestions i would like to discuss with you in a non public space

Imagine a floating entity that does not cater to any politician on the globe but is only driven and handled by open source cientific research and human base ethics doing what is right and necessary for humanity instead of being blinded and driven by partistic political worldviews and interests.

Global mobil out of jurisdiction for everybody.

• …redistribute trillions every year in climate taxes… | it is well known that taxation and politization (big government) is “making the goat the gardener…” the worst kind of action we can take.

• Seasteading is about getting rid of politics in all its forms and getting stuff done beyond short sighted politics.

(.) #17

The reason I want good plankton is because I do not want bad plankton.
Have to keep it simple, else it gets twisted.


Politics has nothing to do with what WE do, individually. Some see Britain Exiting the EU as a good thing. Chavez was bad, no matter who hails him a hero. Trump isn’t good or bad, just the result of people being fed up with big politics and politics-as-usual.

Bread and Circuses… TSI specifically states to use English. Not everyone understands English, but more do, than understand Latin. There ARE rules, regardless that TSI lets you advertise your scams in here, constantly, and doesn’t kill those threads. You make more of an idiot of yourself, especially when you try to impress those that can see through your BS.

Looking for trouble.

Not everyone knows Germanic Idioms, either… DO, please be polite.

I would dare say beware of Ellmer’s pleas to fund HIS projects…

Not true.


The world works the way it does because people form societies, and societies form governments…

(.) #19

Well, after all that is said, I guess on a 35’ sailboat there could be a quoter ton (about 250 Kg, about 500 lb)
to half a ton (500Kg 1000 lb ) iron sulfate transported. The question is how do I explain it to the
Coast Guard and customs officer when they board my ship. I can call it ballast.

Or , may be I can pick it up from a freighter in international waters.

Or someone has a better idea.

(Larry G) #20

There is a serious problem with doing something like this clandestinely. The data can’t be captured. If you can’t measure, you can’t manage.

While “managing” an effort like this could be a collaborative, open effort without need for “governments”, it’s probably not something to be done in complete ignorance of what other people are doing.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #21

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. – Ayn Rand

• Hypothesis: Floating Structures - out of jurisdiction by default - are the key to change that situation.

Context: | Emergent Law | Breakaway Civilization | Ocean Sphere | Drivers of Ocean Colonization |

• Hypothesis: The real Galt’s Gulch is on (and in) the ocean until the outer space frontier is on the table - which means for a while…

(.) #22

And yes, governmental entities and other entities seem to be fraudulent about CO2 and
climate change.
I would take the approach of a publicity “campaign” to show with data that the ocean
pastures are altered by human activity, and can be restored to original condition, to the way
those were before that human activity.

(Larry G) #23

I don’t disagree. The western common law tradition of “that which is not forbidden is allowed” is being steadily eroded. My point is not about permission, it’s about coordination.

I think we can take heart to some small extent- Mr. George was not arrested and executed for his experiment. If enough people “get away with” similar experiments to set a trend, it’s very hard to strictly punish them. Civil disobedience always has risks to the individual.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #24

Hypothesis: If you can run it through the right network politics means little…


Proven fact: @Elmo’s posts include commercial links that ALWAYS ultimately lead to his phony investment schemes.

(Larry G) #26

There’s this widely accepted idea the geo-engineering is too risky. Russ George’s ideas seem worthwhile to put into play for testing, to me. He got raked over the coals and threatened with serious criminal charges for fertilizing plankton.

But these folks want to create large-scale atmosphere modification plants, and it’s perfectly fine?

(.) #27

In my opinion: carbon emission is a big game of money.
When someone is in the good old boys circle, can do whatever.
And they will do anything to keep the money within the circle.
And people who write the correct news article get paid for it.
Others just do not get published.

After all, what could anyone call the killing of the buffalo herds?
Geoengeneering or echo terrorism? Strong words.
How about building dams on rivers? Is that geoengeneering?

Anyways; I like Russ George’s ideas too.

(Larry G) #28

Indeed- me too. CO2 levels have been much higher in the geological history of the world, and life did not disappear. From my own reading of scientific articles, I KNOW that there is much less consensus than the popular media portray on what causes climate change (many causes) and how much is occurring, and especially, what to do about it. the biggest thing that comes to mind is whether CO2 levels are a forcing mechanism or a result. From my own reading, I am of the opinion that higher atmospheric CO2 is a result of higher temps, not the primary cause of them. On the evidence, albedo and solar cycles seem to be a much greater influence on temperature, weather, and climate (deliberately separating weather and climate). The Sahara and Sahel are prime examples of changed albedo due to anthropogenic influence.

(.) #29

Well; the whole CO2 thing is a public relations subject.
There are terms: ‘climate change denier’, ‘carbon footprint’; …etc.

Someone is either within the elitists or not. This might be a social phenomenon.
After all, don’t you know; God reserved flying for the birds.

No use of reasoning. This is a religion. They have lots of money.
They fund the research that supports their idea. And they make more money.

When the fraud gets exposed (such as forged data) they just act like
nothing happened.

It is a religion. Better just to side step them.

(Danielle Tetrault Gooch) #30

This thread reminded me of a Ted talk I watched in one of my culinary classes.

“Chef Dan Barber squares off with a dilemma facing many chefs today: how to keep fish on the menu. With impeccable research and deadpan humor, he chronicles his pursuit of a sustainable fish he could love, and the foodie’s honeymoon he’s enjoyed since discovering an outrageously delicious fish raised using a revolutionary farming method in Spain.”