Climate change and real change

Monists should be worried . People say one thing and do another . ( A positive surface effect often hides a darker and deeper negative effect - solutions are harder to achieve than the press and mere politics would suggest!)
Consider the superficial tokenism on the environment of the present . The Climate clever docs will be used to switch off one thing but then switch on another. Accountaibility isn't the issue for those who are careful conservationsists - they don't need an incentive and a booklet that dumbs down the challenge .- they know its bigger than the attempt to build cleverness . The clever document does one thing by dumbing down the issue --it gives incentive to do nothing or even something negative - "we did what you suggested "!

The millions spent on the magazines of cheap choices don't offer real choice to cut carbon, just real choice to avoid the hard decsions that might really matter ( see below for more) . The millions spent on presenting a positive angle don't do anything positive to limit the negative side . Lets hear the ABC and the press ask why both parties haven't got a tax on air conditioners as part of the cocontribution to carbon targets. After all governments can't do everything - can they?

Are we heading into summer with lower carbon emissions or just more careless emissions. Copyright Emperors academy


.

Climate change uncertainty

Update sept 07 . Mr Plimer did well in the Age yesterday . The media fascination with "new science" has caused many of them to miss the intellectual boat completely : "forgeting "as they have for years that geologists have a very legitimate view of earth processes and the best way to work new research in earth science . Old science is infact an expression of what we as scientists respect . It contrasts rather well with the common myopia and wonder working worship of "new science" and the more recent shortsighted preoccupation with the emphemeral - the study of hot air .

Plimer was on the money, but not fast enough for the chasers war on truth ; the fast moving agenda change agents . In his Age article today he uses "global warning " words which like the correct idea of "climate change uncertainty " is fine for scientists because it relates to facts . BUT Such talk is now , it seems, not new enough "science speak" - for those who claim to support science but who are often only interested in moving on ?

Mr Plimer did a great job BUT he still needs to keep up to date with the lost wandering tribes of diversionary tactic specialists .
In a matter of a mere cool spell , they have changed course again !

They now insist on talking only of "climate change" and resisting "global warming" talk . One presumes that their key target ( the audience) is getting cold here in Victoria .
Apperently, the term "global warming" limits their opportunity to say things .

The "new science" brigade want the opportunity to stay in front of the debate; to say anything they like about climate; especially that it does change. Clever , but not new discoveries in science ! You heard it first on blogger !

Keep cool

No need to get too excited - the world is not falling apart, but
---their is a lot of guilt around trying to find a target that's not too close to home . Point is even if there is a need to act
-----many will be on the blame game and the quick fix game
-----you or someone you know and love may be the target -- not a solution that really WORKS
----- The HOW is dependant on cool rational discussion . not the inflated hype of Gore hysteria and hyster graphics .( my money is on the graph staying rather flatter than he suggests- you heard it first on blogger mar 2007)

Just a bit of history to keep you calm ( I hope)
Add some more to our dateline please !

1977 ---NEWSWEEK ran an alarmist article on global temperature changes entitled " The Cooling World"

1991 ---Mt Pinatubo ( the Phillipines) punched ash into the stratosphere ( as did Mt Agung in 1963) and blocked out sunlight to the extent that the earth COOLED by 0.5 degrees ( New Scientist jan 2007)

2007 Foreign Correspondent this week ran a exciting story on some islands in the Pacific that were being flooded by the sea. Everyone was getting excited the news we have been waiting for at last !!!!!
In an investigation that was reminscient,in style, to that of Margaret Mead, the locals were saying " we'' all be ruined " while a cool mr plimer the geologist clearly had other ideas --which were only briefly mentioned - don't spoil a good story by telling the truth . What was the truth - ar they sinking or is the sea rising?

Howard is God?

Is Fridays meeting in Canberra about water or power, ecology or elections , a beautiful new bureaucratic machine.
Maybe its about not about ecology and is really about theology (Who do you believe has the power?) .
King Canute would be fascinated . As a effective politician and leader, he once had to remind his courtiers that, while he was very powerful, he was not God, and water was one thing he could not control.
Turnbull taps might be gold plated, but they still won't turn ON when he thinks they will.
Maybe he is too used to 2 straight lines columns on the ledger in his office ( where the simple matter of scarcity can be so easily profitable for the rich to exploit!)

Perhaps he's forgotten to brief himself on the world God made- where real curves intersect without crashing and progress to this point has been beautifully blended for both scarcity and abundance- where the many forms of life manage to live together for eons without his help , profiting in symbiosis without sickly self centered simplicities economia. Copyright

The great defect in talking "the greenhouse effect"

Nothing undermines the fearmongers case more that their failure to report scientists properly . They quote selectively to suit their old story that the sky is falling .

The latest theories is that co2 is causing global warming when this rare and empehemeral molecule clearly can't absorb much radiation or have much of a role in reflection. When this FACT hits home the investments in carbon trading will go where we know they are headed as both unsustainable ideas and actions.
The greenhouse effect too has got a bad name because it is not being discussed properly . As the UN report this week unclearly hints, land clearing is more likely to increase air temperature and change atmospheric conditions than the amount of Co2 which is busily being recycled before our very eyes. More later.
How much longer will the media be content to mention the name carbon - not long I suggest remeber You heard it first on blogger and otwayfm .