Hi Donna and Kevin,

you are on the right way and have my full respect.
I wish i could live like you do.

Here some information that maybe usefull for you:

Global Warming, doesn't exist. The carbon discussion is just another lie from the big companies to generate money out of thin air.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

and a documention from the BBC:
http://www.alice-dsl.net/germanskywatch/klimaluege.html

Sorry, i have posted the wrong link, to the BBC documentation:

TheGreatGlobalWarmingSwindle

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-87...=bbc+global+warming

so first they cover up and never admit the previous examples where they were distorting the truth (troposphere) then they come up with other lies and distortions and swindles (such as on the above lists..and there are others) they also mislead and mis-quote people..they tell a scientist that they want him or her to talk about the uncertainties...and there are uncertainties: how fast will warming happen? how will this or that process (for example the albedo feedback) affect warming? How fast will CO2 affect this or that other process, etc, there are (like in any area of science) many uncertainties...but is not uncertain is:

* CO2 levels are increasing, very fast

* this is caused mostly by human activities

* this is dangerous to the planet.

Even the Bush administration after many years finally admitted these three things (these three are also the position of the American Geophysical Union and also of the American Academy of Science and also of NOAA and also of the National Climate Data center and also of the AAAS the American Assoc for the Advancement of Science..they are the prestigious organization that publishes Science magazine, which along with UK's Nature, another peer reviewed journal is at the top of scientific research and the same three conclusions are taken by the top science academies of about every other country (UK, etc) that you could care to bring to mind)

So they pretend it's uncertainty about whether there is global warming but the scientist interviewed thinks they are being interviewed about the uncertainty of this or that specific detail in how (or how fast, or how exactly it is taking place, molecule by molecule, etc) it is happening precisely...

The film interviews Professor Wunsch and misrepresents him as if he thinks CO2 does not cause warming..in fact he believes like 99.5% of scientists, that it does! He said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".

Professor Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said he had been "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" on its content. He added that he is considering making a formal complaint.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...-for-c4-439773.html

This is the real swindle, this denialist scam telling people global climate destabilization isn't real. The denialists also almost never want to let you look at a graph of CO2 levels...which would show for hundreds of thousands of years there were natural cycles and CO2 was between 180 and 280 parts per million then back to 180 then back up to 280 and so on...until the industrial revolution and it's off the chart at 385 pppm

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Or here

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/art/graph4.gif

(continued from above) Let's try this one for now:

"The troposphere discrepancy proves global warming is not happening or else unproven"

The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the earth’s surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine.

Ref: Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz, 2nd September 2005. The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature. Science. Vol 309, pp1548-1551.

Ref: B.D. Santer et al, 2nd September 2005. Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere. Science. Vol 309, pp1548-1551.

Ref: Steven J. Sherwood, John R. Lanzante and Cathryn L. Meyer, 2nd September 2005. Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming. Science. Vol 309, pp1556-1559.

Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the lead authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.”

Ref: Tom Wigley et al, April 2006. Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences: Executive Summary. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

See also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

A bit less technical and covering more of the swindles in the "Global Warming Swindle" film is:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

It's important for all of us to notice how dishonest the logic is of the denialists, too. After all, before the errors were corrected, scientists didn't know what the problem was. But science is never, ever, 100% "done", 100% "complete", there is always something (many things) we don't understand. Given that there were dozens, and dozens, and dozens of pieces of evidence pointing towards human-caused global warming, the fact that (back then) there was One piece of evidence (the apparent discrepancy in toposphere measurements vs surface temperature) logically would not "disprove" or even "cast doubt" on human caused global warming. It just meant that there is one area where the scientists could not explain the readings, and given that it was not one, not two, not ten, but many dozens and in fact hundreds of pieces of evidence pointing towards the conclusion that yes, there is human caused global warming, anyone who pretended (even back then, before the puzzle was solved!) that this was "casting doubt" on global warming, when that "question mark" was overwhelmed by so many dozens of solid pieces of evidence for AGW (anthropogentic, or human-caused, global warming) was either very misinformed, or an outright swindler.

Now, in fact, sure enough, as outlined above, the "question mark" just took a few more years for scientists to find the errors in the measurements and sure enough, once corrected, it because Yet Another piece of evidence that matches the piles of evidence for global warming. So it's factually false to talk about the "discrepancy" with troposphere temperatures because it turned out they were measured wrong, and the (very dishonest movie) shamefully doesn't mention that this has now been resolved. They don't want you to know that. They don't want you to know about ocean acidification. They don't want to you know what scientists really said in the 1970s (they want to lie and tell you "they told us the world would cool, not warm!" and other lies) they just want to sow as much uncertainty and doubt as they can, knowing most people have very limited time to check up on them, and also, they can always come up with another lie..there is an infinite number of lies and distortions...(last part cont below)

Rainefromgermany,

Anyone who tells you that "Global warming doesn't exist, because..." is trying to swindle you before they even get to the "because" part. If there was no global warming greenhouse effect the Earth would be much colder and difficult for life. This is basic Physics 101 and has been known and established for well over 100 years, long before Al Gore, long before the modern environmental movement, etc.

What they might mean is "human-caused global warming doesn't exist" but the sloppy language is typical for the whole "denial" industry. I have one question for any denialist, for starter: what about ocean acidification. If they were really just "skeptical" about the warming, but honest people otherwise, they would say, "look, clearly the CO2 is damaging the oceans and threatening further damage, and the increased ocean acidity that has already happened, and is already established, is reason enough to cut down on emissions on GHGs (greenhouse gases), even though the 'warming' part I'm not sure about" But how many so called skeptics say this? Virtually none! Why not? Because they either don't even know about ocean acidification, or they don't want You to know. Because their agenda is to stop all regulations of industry so industry can do whatever it wants and continue with Business As Usual.

There are too many lies to debunk. Here are some typical lies and distortions and outright swindles:

"there is no global warming" a swindle, as discussed above

"there has been no warming since 1998" ..is a Swindle by the denialists

"global warming is cause by water vapor and not by CO2, don't you know!" ..is a Swindle by the denialistts

"Scientists in the 1970s told us the earth was going to cool not warm, so they don't know really!" .is a multiple Swindle by the denialists

"The 1934 data shows there is no global warming" another multiple and very embarrassing (for them) Swindle by the denialists

It would take several paragraphs to debunk any of these, but I can do that, name which ones, I'll reply.

(The server is slow for longer messages so I split the rest of the post into parts II and III below)

Edited by author 01-15-2009 02:25 AM
I find it interesting that temperature timelines demonstrate that the earth was much warmer during the medieval warming period, and that the 'hockey stick' graph seems to have been proven a fake. I wonder if the Sun has anything to do with it.
Here's a couple to consider if interested:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://www.itssd.org/Issues/christopherMon...harticle11-5-06.pdf

This doesn't change anything regarding to our (society in general) unsustainable methods of not working with natures cycles for health, (like water cycle by harvesting rainwater or keyline design or ideas like permaculture, carbon cycle by possible ways of reducing out-of-control wild fires with ideas like those used with 'terra preta', nutrient cycles like by humanure composting, ...) which ends up contributing to disease/painful effects to animal life (us included). And, any change has to be by willing choice; if it's promoted by punishment or threat of, it will be doomed to fail.

Edited by author 01-19-2009 05:54 PM
a, yes, I could have easily added the "the Hockey Stick is fake" argument to the list of swindles by deniers. In fact, it has not "been proven a fake" in fact, it has been strongly corroborated. I'll put some links below. Does this not show you how badly they lie to you, those who keep repeating these arguments?

The original "Hockey stick" refers to a paper 11 years ago, Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) in 1998. Of course we have 11 more years of data and evidence about global warming, but even if we use this 1998 paper, was it "wrong"? Quite the opposite. You don't expect it to be perfect, 11 years of more science and imperfections in all experiments exist, but the overall verdict is? That they were right. The verdict comes from several sources.

1. The National Center for Atmospheric Research page
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml summarizes:
"Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed" meaning even if you change and modify some of the basic assumptions, you still get a very, very similar result "hockey stick" (really means, increasing and increasing at an increasing rate) graph for teperature. They refuted the oil-industry geologist claims that the hockey stick isn't right: "Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year"

More from June 2006 backing the conclusions about the so-called hockey stick:


Backing for 'hockey stick' graph


"The Earth was hotter in the late 20th Century than it had been in the last 400 or possibly 1,000 years, a report requested by the US Congress concludes.The new report, carried out by a panel of the US-based National Research Council (NRC), largely vindicates the researchers' work, first published in 1998. The NRC report concludes: 'Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th Century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.' Professor John Zillman, president of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, added: "The conclusions of the National Research Council committee seem entirely plausible and responsible.

"The significance of the so-called hockey stick controversy has been blown out of all proportion since the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Third Assessment Report in 2001.

The original authors of the 1998 paper also published again in 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7592575.stm
"Different analytical methods give the same result, they report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "

but this second one is by the Mann and colleagues, and we're told (by the dishonest denialists) not to trust Mann et al, so never mind this link, use the first one above by the National Research Council which said at least for the last 400 years the 1998 paper was right (and they correctly added that for earlier times it's harder to be so sure)

New York Times

NRC Confirms Heating, "Hockey Stick" Study

 Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate

The New York Times, June 22, 2006

"WASHINGTON, June 22 -- A controversial paper asserting that recent
warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000
years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened
by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.

"The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not
the best and that some uncertainties in the work 'have been
underestimated,'" and does not endorse conclusions about the decade of the 1990s itself, but as for the hockey stick itself:

"But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National
Academies said 'an array of evidence' supported the main thrust of the
paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal
intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to
old questions. "

"At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies,
several members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign
that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a
desired result.

" 'I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation,' said one member,
Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State
University. He added that his impression was the study was 'an honest
attempt to construct a data analysis procedure.'

"More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the
pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature
shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that
warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a
news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming
was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900"

The Boston Globe, June 23, 2006

A signature piece of evidence for global warming -- a compilation of
data showing that a sharp rise in temperatures made the late 20th
century the warmest period in 1,000 years -- is probably true, a
national panel of scientific specialists concluded yesterday.

The National Academy of Sciences, which advises Congress and the
government, was then asked to conduct an independent review by the
chairman of the House Science Committee, Republican Sherwood L.
Boehlert of New York.

``Our conclusion is that this recent period of warming is likely the
warmest in the last millennium," said John M. Wallace, one of the 12
panel members and a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University
of Washington.

During a Washington press conference yesterday, other members of the
panel said that they had a high level of confidence -- 90 percent to 95
percent -- that the planet is in its warmest period in 400 years and
that the odds are ``2 to 1" that this is probably the warmest period
stretching back 1,000 years, as the original (1998) study concluded.

---

And on and on it goes...anyone who tells us that the hockey stick is "iffy" (or "wrong" or "fake") is either unaware of all the followup backing it has received, or is not telling you the truth.

The dishonesty of the denialists is worse though, since even if the hockey stick (which had been proven to be overall correct, in fact, surprisingly correct given all the new data and better science now a decade later) it would have Not been "The end of the theory of man-made global warming"
as described in

Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

and in

What If … the “Hockey Stick” Were Wrong?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114

that even HAD it been "wrong" the mountains and mountains of evidence would still be there that global warming is real, human-caused to a very large extent, and dangerous.

As discussed above, it turned out that the hockey stick, even under the extremely watchful and prestigious eye of the National Panel, turned out to be correct.

People who said the hockey stick is "wrong" and "thus we don't know whether global warming is real/human-caused" were not only wrong in that the hockey stick graph (of temperatures) was right, they were also wrong (or, in some cases, very dishonest with the rest of us) because they pretended that the global warming being caused by people depends mostly on the hockey stick graph being correct, when it never did depend on it..! See the last two links above. This was an education for me when I found out, and read these last two links, on top of the fact that the original hockey stick turned out to be just about right..

On a more spiritual note..this is from a recent newsletter by Dr. Emmett Miller..so tune with Earthstart philosophy, that Kevin and Donna could have written this themselves..or something very similar...and in the past they have written similar ones..don't you agree? But neat ideas. Here it is:

Wellness - Your Cash Reserve of Good Health

Introduction: Having plenty of cash set aside is something we all know is a good idea. The lack of sufficient cash reserves, as our world is discovering, can lead to sudden, often unexpected and catastrophic events. We have lived foolishly, both individually and as a culture - somehow believing we could push ourselves beyond healthy limits with impunity. It is clear, now, that instead of borrowing against the future, it is time to come into the present moment, to guide our thoughts and behaviors wisely, and to develop sustainable ways to deal with our resources - individually, as communities and as a planet of interdependent living beings. It is time to become aware of what is really of most value to us, and to commit ourselves to wise guidance at every level of system.

In this issue we will begin with examining your inner cash reserve of wellness. In subsequent issues we will explore creative ways to deal with the economic stressors of our time.
 

Building up a reserve of good health is like keeping money in reserve -- it makes good sense.

You're probably quite familiar with a phrase that often appears in the preamble to partnership and stock offerings: "Substantial risk involved! Only investors with a certain amount of personal cash reserve should take part." In other words, it's fine to put a relatively small percentage of your total net worth into highly volatile or risky investments. But how can we apply this principle to health?

It's called "Reserve Capacity," and it is what will keep you from getting sick when unexpected stress comes your way. Most people are careful to check the oil in their cars regularly, adding more even before it is necessary, but many of these same people will push their health and vitality levels to the limit and then wonder why they "overheat" under pressure.

You need considerable cash reserves to start a new business. Nature provides us considerable reserve by giving us two kidneys, when one -- or even a half -- kidney might be enough for most of us. Likewise, we should give ourselves more than the minimum rest, nutrition and exercise. It is this margin of error that allows us to bounce back when we have a health problem.

Most of us have been trained to be unwise with our physical health, and make a mistake that we would never make in our financial lives -- we overdraw our corporal accounts.

What can we do to invest in a "wellness savings account?"

Invest in your own energy stocks. It's best to diversify, of course, keeping in mind the four basic energy areas: physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual. Here are their "portfolios":

Physical Energy: Monitor your diet, including calories, fat, vitamins, antioxidants, and fiber. Avoid cancer-causing foods. Exercise, with regular strengthening, stretching and aerobics. Get plenty of rest. Poor sleep habits lead to low energy and impaired performance and decision making, as well as greater susceptibility to accidents, infection and other diseases.

Emotional Energy: Your emotional diet should include the full range of human feeling. Regularly exercise your emotions, strengthening and stretching them. Allow grief and sadness to stretch you, for they are essential to heal from the necessary losses we all experience in life. Anger and assertiveness are strengthening; they are our keys to power and achievement. Serenity brings healing and joy, a strong tonic to the life force within us.

Mental Energy: Avoid bad habits and addictions. Monitor denial and dissociation. Exercise the ability to confront people or situations and to accept rather than overreact. The key to mental relaxation is The Serenity Principle: Develop the ability to accept those things you cannot change, the courage to change those that you can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Spiritual Energy: Take the time to digest great wisdom, through books, discussions, loving relationships, spiritual rituals and ceremonies.

Do spiritual exercises every day, such as meditation or prayer, to realign yourself with the higher principles you wish to be guided by. Many people give the spiritual side too much rest.They need to awaken spiritually -- to their own inner principles, values, and ethics; to their vision of the future; and to their true mission in life.

Edited by author 01-21-2009 11:36 PM
I can't argue with you on this. With so much info. on the mainstream media and by the status quo scientists with connections to big business, I think of the saying that goes something like, 'A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.' Also, for those that are 'self-appointed guardians of the status quo' and don't believe anything unless it is from the main media outlets, I am reminded of the quote, "They must find it difficult...those who have accepted authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." (Gerald Massey) not to say I was thinking of you, but in general from what I've been noticing lately.

If global warming does exist or not, consider this: I believe I may have found out why plain, simple awareness is sooo powerful. It is because one of the main ways a few powerful people can channel the direction of the masses to whatever aim they desire is as follows:
Called the Hegelian dialectic, also known as (and one of their known mottos) Order Out of Chaos, aka 'Problem, Reaction, Solution' (as simplified by David Icke). Just as the Oklahoma City bombing was not a big enough catastrophe to pass 'anti-terrorism legislation', along came 9/11 where the so called 'Patriot Act' that had been written long in advance was eagerly waiting, that legally obliterated basic freedoms unconstitutionally. Just as the Pearl Harbor attack was known about well in advance by top military and the President, used to get the usA masses on board to support an entrance to WW II, in the 1997 document Project for a New American Century with outlined goals (such as *increasing military spending, eliminating groups resistant to their corporate interests, expanding globalization by force, and furthering plans for what some call a 'New World Order'; see document for further details), "their stated goals would never be realized “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event –like a new Pearl Harbor”. (page 63)." (oldamericancentury.com) Then came along 9/11.
        So, now that one of their main techniques is known for molding and manipulating public perception (want to ban 2nd amendment? - have a few possibly staged group shootings be highly publicized, and claim the only solution is victim disarmament, I mean 'gun control'), how may that be linked to something like global warming? Now taking care of the environment, cleaning up pollution, etc., I'm all for; but not reached by punishment or force or loss of human 'rights'/unalienable freedoms. However, if at the top of the pyramid with the supposed all seeing eye, they decide they want to skim off more of people's energy in the form of a global taxation scheme called a carbon tax, it fits the bill perfectly (not to say this will be the final product; they may hone/tweak the concept, or come up with a totally different idea). This out look will bring much awareness and clarity in itself, and shed light on the reasons many things are happening now and have occurred in the past that to the masses don't seem to make much sense. An invitation to consider this possibility.

Here's another one real quick: World consolidation of money into the hands of a few that have set up 'central banks' all around the world for exactly that purpose (the one here called the Federal Reserve (actually not Federal, and has no reserves)), they then create an economic disruption, just like boom and busts are easily driven, like panics and the great Depression was created (for more consolidation and wealth/power transfer), so that now the offered solution may be a global currency with a global central bank to do this control on a global scale more efficiently.

And, while Milton Friedman had many ideas beneficial to an economy that could actually help people, some used what he taught in a different light pointed out in this 7 min. video by Naomi Klein and Alfonso Cuaron called The Shock Doctrine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSF0e6oO_tw


Ending with a quote from Henry Kissinger to put it quite simply, “Who controls money controls the world.”

The Secret of El Dorado (and it ain't gold)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8993313723654914866

real useable info. begins around 31 min.

biochar

charcoal

tera preta

Edited by author 01-27-2009 02:29 PM
"a"

Great info, really enjoyed the vid. Really sends the mind down many trails of interest.

As a side note the first thing that came to mind is a probiotic product Primal Defense from Garden Of Life (no affilation)look at the story of how Rubin came to find the product and his health again. Not an endorsement, more perhaps a validation of the importance of "tera preta". The second thought was about Activated Charcoal. Not sure where my thought process is going but an 800% yeild increase is to say the least impressive and important.

Thanks.

Edited to add a third idea/question, do you think that this is where "oil" comes from.

Edited again to add ... of course humanure also comes to mind. And were animal involved.

But one thing does bug me and it is the standard scientific answer for the sudden disapearance of entire civilizations, germs, if this is true were are all the bodies?

Edited by author 01-27-2009 11:25 PM
Do you have a link to Rubin's story? I didn't find anything easily. Very thought provoking question of where are 'all the bodies?'. I wonder if bodies buried in pure crushed charcoal would preserve well. I'd think there'd be at least a few bones around.

I have made some charcoal and today have altered some metal drums to further my experiments. I found this intro. to charcoal making very interesting because it's totally natural. Now I'm adjusting the concept but that video gave me the basics. It's kinda long, but if anyone is interested in old time charcoal making it's a fun video.
Good "how to" charcoal making 4 part video.

part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=51...434669401&ei=&hl=en
part 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...369918059&ei=&hl=en
part 3 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...764674138&ei=&hl=en
part 4 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=18...220008547&ei=&hl=en

Edit: For those without video, the basics:
Flat dirt area with dirt raked back from circle.
Take thin kindling sticks and in a triangle or square make a tower of the sticks.
Then take dry pretty thin sticks or slats or whatever you have I guess, and begin piling it up around the tower so that in the end it looks like a cone of wood.
Then take grass, pine needles, straw, or other stuff and cover the cone.
Then put dirt over it all except leaving the hole at the top, the top of the tower.
Put in kindling to fill the tower, throw in some red hot coals, or somehow start the kindling.
Then once the fire has caught the wood, pile grass/straw/pine needles/etc. over the hole and cover it with dirt so that it's really gently smoking.
If anywhere later starts smoking heavily, throw some dirt on it.
!! The charcoaling process can go for days, sometime weeks. I think it took the fella in the vid. near a couple weeks before he raked the charcoal through the dirt.
After a while the pile will need to be packed in as the wood shrinks.
Days into it, if need be, open up a few small holes near the bottom to encourage the process to charcoal to every edge.

Making charcoal when surroundings are damp, like after many good rains, would be a safe idea. Having water near also. And being far, far away from anything else flammable.

If it really can prevent leaching of nutrients, and provide housing for beneficial probiotics, and ....
I am happy that the process produces such little smoke (which is also filtered through the dirt). If the heat could be harvested it would be great because the process could provide constant heat for many days if not weeks depending on how one does it.

a,

thank you for recognizing that not EVERYONE has video capabilities. As someone who has only slow dial up as an option (24k), I find that the trend to put everything on video these days very depressing. It's nice that you included what the video was about, in your post. Thanks.

Donsgal

Donsgal - I'm in the same boat of video just not being a viable information source.

a - thanks for the description!

Thanks for the links. What I want to know is where he found these soil organisms, how did he determine they might help people, how people can grow them themselves (so they won't be dependent on forever having to go to a company/corporation for them), and will they help my garden if sprinkled on the soil :) ?