Copenhagen. A Failure?

The Climate Conference in Copenhagen appears to have been a failure in the eyes of many. Indeed it was, with this important disclaimer. For those who expected too much; or for those who willed it to fail: Copenhagen was a failure.

Firstly, to those who willed Copenhagen to fail. Any & all possible outcomes would have been picked over and degraded by this mob. That is a given. Dialogue/debate is next to worthless in this arena. Logic barely exists. An emotional outlook has been fabricated and rigidly adhered to. Oh, of course there is back-pocket logic. The only reason we have to care about these fools is due to their stultifying influence. For activists, the path is clear. Conversation with this mob is a waste of time. It can be crudely boiled down to a generational divide. Activists must simply wait until a large quantity of objectors curl up & die. Other paths could well be futile. I am reminded of the republican debate in Australia. Trench politics. The absolute opposite to the ideal of democratic practice (also one of it's major constants).

To those who expected too much. Diplomacy is a slow, pondering beast. Try getting 190 people in a room for a discussion on the same topic. Within, numerous environmental bigots will do their utomost to keep proceedings at a stillpoint. International diplomacy is no better. The minimal (and yes, non-binding) agreements set are all that could possibly be expected. Posturing and influence are far greater components than the actual content of speech. Politics is human. Again, another point that logic is secondary.

The greatest question to be asked (and answered) at any meeting of this kind is : 'What's in it for me?' A clear and obvious demonstration of the negative effects of climate change is sorely needed. In a nutshell, this impetus does not presently exist. International leaders, mindful of their own constituency, have little choice but to push the 'What's in it for me?' line to it's extreme. At the present stage of scientific uptake (minimal), it would be naive to expect anything better. It is a low-grade game of Simon Says. For one to act without the appearance of similar action by others is largely fruitless. I do not agree with this one bit from a personal level. However, at a different level it is a no-brainer.

Which brings me to the major point. Climate change action is the responsibility of the individual. To expect government (elected democratically, for this example's sake) to take collective action is a misnomer. The 'debate' in the US & Australia is truly woeful. A bunch of organisations with vested interests have a massive influence. Governments may try to make the right noisess. It barely matters in the crunch. Every single scheme I have seen proffered in the political environment is terrible. Permits to allow the large polluters to continue polluting etc. So flawed that I didn't care whether they were voted in or not.

There is a tougher part for people who have decided on individual action. How does one communicate one's deeds? This is crucial. A middle line must be taken. One must be wary of 'preaching'. This will quickly go nowhere. The movement needs to be led by action, not rhetoric. Rhetoric must play it's part. It has to be a substantially smaller part than many would like. Lead by action. Talk is cheap. Deniers are scum who cannot be converted by talk. They require a parental approach, without the requisite finger-wagging. An almost impossible line to take, I agree. I lose my patience very quickly on these matters. A religious figure, of sorts, is needed. Hey, I'm unaware of a religious figure who didn't continually shoot his mouth off. So, I am calling for a non-human to lead a very human problem. It could be safe to say that will never happen. All we can control is the individual level.

Self interest clearly trumps all other interests. Following this, I expect no meaningful action from government (en masse) until the situation is dire & obvious. Until that point, individual action is the key. The best hope I can offer is that a new stream of politicians may emerge from this movement. It will be at a very late stage in the 'debate'.

Ah, Piffle. I give up. Copenhagen was a failure.

The Problem with the Climate Change Debate

Facts are the clearest problem in the Climate Change debate. Theories are almost impossible to prove without directly observable events. The point at which this direct observation occurs could be well into the future. However, I wish to largely ignore the (Earth-based) facts in this article. I would like to talk about the fatalistic mind-frame that accompanies such debate.

Fatalistic thinking is a massive bugbear for Climate Change activists. It matters not whether the fatalism is correct. In the eyes of deniers, the mind-frame itself is problematic. This area sorely needs addressing. The same thinking was prevalent with the Millenium Bug, in the year 2000. The Millenium Bug turned out to be a massive public scare with little or no basis. This is important. A precedent has been followed. A bunch of people spoke up, essentially proclaiming the end of the (digital) world. For people who are not involved heavily with computers - it was a bunch of crazy tech people speaking far out of their station. Their prophecies could be safely ignored.

The same is true with the Climate Change debate. The tendency to exaggerate (in whatever fashion) disastrous events is a well-established norm. The invariable winners are the people who ignored such fatalistic claims. The calculated end of civilisation by the Mayans, in 2012, is an oft-spoken of event. No-one (I know) would believe such an ancient prophecy directly. However, couple that with other things, such as Climate Change, and one can easily merge the two. One could easily ascribe to the Mayans a 'green' brain that was able to see the effects of Climate Change. This process is the problem that I am talking about.

In the eyes of deniers, a fatalistic mind-frame is a problem in of itself. It smacks of depression and self-loathing. A person who is so unhappy with their own life, that they begin to ascribe their viewpoint to the wider world. Whether or not any of this is true is irrelevant. The overtones are clear. To a great degree, many deniers may feel like they are debating with children. Children who invoke the bogey monster from the closet. The Climate Change activists must address this issue. It is critical. It may take years to get this public relations point right.

I have 2 points I wish to directly address to sceptics. The first is the nature of the word sceptic. To be a sceptic is a completely natural turn of events, as highlighted above. Historically, sceptics have contributed much more than authority, one may safely surmise. The definition of the word sceptic (amongst others) is ' Philosopher who questions the possibility of knowledge.' A very powerful position. However, related to the Climate Change debate, it is clear that most knowledge talked about can never be proven. Or never be proven in sufficient time. Proof is an incredibly dicey area. One may continually reject proof for reasons other than the data. Wittled down, scepticism at it's extreme is also nihilistic. In the same fashion that Climate Change activists are (to the extreme). A perfectly acceptable line of scepticism (and not a new one) is to deny that anything could ever be known. In a philosophical sense, it is impossible to 'prove' this viewpoint incorrect. It is correct simply because one has taken the position. It must be noted that one can never move from such a position, if one's aim is to be 'right', once it is taken.

As a sceptic, having taken the position, it is one's duty to examine evidence. The sceptic must at all times keep an open mind. To do otherwise would be selective scepticism, ie everyday 'logic'. Taking of a position purely for personal reasons. A sceptic must not take this option, to continue to call themselves a sceptic. Clearly, most who label themselves so are not sceptics. They are merely deniers. Deniers are impossible to debate, on any topic. The pre-formed view is that which one is left with. This is not a Sceptic.

I urge all sceptics to examine the atmosphere of Venus. Venus has no possible man-made interference in relation to it's atmosphere. I believe this sidesteps another of the great problems with this debate - Fault, or lack of it. In discussing Venus, the debate will have much greater clarity. Please examine the current data on the atmosphere of Venus and make your own conclusion.

Thankyou for taking the time to read this article.

P.S. In speaking of deniers/sceptics/activists/(believers), I entirely acknowledge that no 1 person is 100% either way. The sceptic (in everyone) can, and should be appealed to directly to further this debate.

In conclusion. 1 month after writing the article. The whole debate is far more stuffed than I imagined. This post has convinced no-one. At no stage did the discussion move on to Venus. Most just read the first few lines and teed off. They had no idea what the article was about.

Sex & Anxiety : Keeping up with the Jones's

We have been very lucky (?) this year. A veritable cavalcade of stories has whirled around us. In quick succession. The private lives of the rich & famous are the particular area of public interest. Clearly, not enough information nor details may sate the public desire. Firstly, a few standard comments on gossip.

Gossip is an odd area of human interaction. It provides a means of social connection between people who may not have anything else to talk about. It offers a degree of character-building. One may elevate one's social rank by having multiple stories of gossip at one's disposal. The rarer, or dirtier, the better. Also, the greater degree of elevation at hand. Gossip is an integral part of the social nature of humans.

In saying this, it is clear that gossip is quite incompatible with many other social urges. For example, the desire to be accepted. One person's gossip may bring a social grouping to crash down. Usually at an individual's expense. The group may safely ostracise the individual. Irrespective of the factual worth of the gossip.

The most interesting gossip is that which cannot be proved. Enter the area of sexual dalliance. Again going back to sociological reasoning : Gossip about sex is the most frequent, perhaps most important, area of gossip. Confining the argument to one group (who freely interact with one another), it has clear methodology. To know that person A is involved with person B is invaluable information in this light. One may see favours being given where otherwise they would not be apparent. Within this group setting, one may undermine these machinations to one's favour. Extremely valuable.

The problem in the 'wider world' relates exactly to this idea. Celebrities fill the role of 'leaders'. We all know of them. With a brief idea of their basic outward motivations. In general, it will be a sports player or actor. People we watch in their professional life. Our social groups are so wide & diverse that the sweet carrot becomes even greater. The greatest dirge of human conversation is having to listen to people talk about people we neither know nor care about. As a method of compensation for this dirge, easily identifiable celebrities are the 'space-fillers'. We can talk about them, and other people will most likely have some degree of care. Simply by knowing who we are talking about. This point cannot be understated.

However, the


2009 - Official Year of the Sex Scandal

So, I bought the newspaper for the first time in months. I haven't been following online. Page 3 - 'Barmaid talks of sex in car with Premier.' Ah, it's refreshing to know things haven't changed. Newspapers still rely on the lowest common denominator approach. I can only gather it continues to work.

"In her paid interview, Ms Chantelois says she had sex in Mr Rann's office and would collect him from Adelaide casino .. and drive to the nearby ..  golf club. 'He was calling the shots and I was his puppet' she said. 'I would just follow his instructions and there were secret meetings."

Well, I am very shocked already. How dare a man in power ever use that power for sex? It must be an abuse of power. Remember - 'He was calling the shots'. The victimhood of the woman is now established.

"[We would go] just on the side of the road at the golf course. And I'm ashamed to say intimacy was involved."

Oh, that's a relief. I thought this was a sex scandal. It appears they parked by the side of the road and talked with 'intimacy'. In any case, the woman is not to blame.

"Ms Chantelois told Seven that Mr Rann should say sorry to those hurt by the affair, including her estranged husband, family, his wife and 'probably the public as well.'"

Absolutely Mr Rann should apologise to the estranged husband of the woman. I mean, he bears absolute  responsibility. It is the sheer radiating power from his penis that blinded the woman. If that were absent, Ms Chantelois would stay perfectly faithful to her marriage vows, for multiple lifetimes, if not eternity.

At least there is one refreshing constant. Newspapers are Garbage
Donate your now worthless crypto to Igroki

ETH 0x31e0da9a8f3083ecbcba7d941d0a6e394ccf657b

LTC M85Q9RxzRZcDjYk8U72rnqhHyCVG3yZVdz

XRP rPvKH3CoiKnne5wAYphhsWgqAEMf1tRAE7?dt=5407

Big Deal