No one knows whether the cessation of the waste radiation of atomic energy exploitation or the cessation of coal and shaole conversion into fluid fuel will occur in time to permit the physical continuance of humans on planet Earth. What we do know however, as we have previously stated, is (1) that with the unselfish use of technology, it is now possible to care of all humanity at a higher standard of living than any have ever experienced and do so on a sustaining basis by employing only our daily energy income from Sun and gravity and (2) that we can do so in time to permit the healthy continuance of humans on planet Earth.

This quote, which actually explictly refers to the 'greenhouse effect', the 'cause' of Global warming, dates back to 1981. Nuff said.

Climate change or consciousness change?

I freely admit that maybe I spend too much time writing about Climate Change, reflecting the popularity of this fear-meme and reacting to the overload of propaganda in all forms of media. The chemtrails season has restarted, another obvious reminder that no matter how much I would rather not interact with this meme and its manifestations, it affects my daily life.

Like any fear-meme it traps lots of energy in the mind to engage in a lost battle. The denier try to protect themselves from paying for the other sides paranoia, the fearmongerers feed their fear even more by failing to convince the other side of 'scientific truths'.

Meanwhile, our dominators can rub their backs for another cheap trick to distract from their parasitic existence. Our species is relatively young, and most likely only for a short period infested by the meme of government. It's ability for fast meme creation and distribution contributed to its evolutionary survival. It's easy to forget our natural inheritance in man-made environments. Other forms of life are mostly pests or pets, some foods successfully disguise any origin of formally living matter.

The currently dominant evolutionary strategy, being a ruthless master of this planet, mirrors this disassociation from life. This has not only destroyed other species and ecosystems, it also contributes to an increasing level of insanity within our own species. Obesity, autism, allergies, death by suicide, death by violence, schizophrenia, fear-related disabilities blossom in the 21st century.

So if mankind acted as one organism, interested in general health of it whole self, what challenge would need tackling first? Global warming?

Mankind has experienced some different climates in its about 200,000 years presence on this planet. Our adaptability created colourful varieties of how to live together in all sorts of environments, from tropical forests via scorching deserts and moderate climates to arctic regions. As traveller we might experience this amazing fact for ourselves, yet we might realise at the same time our own inability to survive under conditions which differ too much from our usual habitat.

Even though our planet would change its face when some of the current horror scenarios become reality, mankind would have a fair chance to survive. Whether I could still publish a blog, or if the rising sea levels and so on would destroy human global communication infrastructure I don't know. The world game would certainly change, maybe even to the better. If enough artefacts survive the cataclystic climate catastrophe, maybe the next generations fight off governments better, and enjoy sustainability instead of manic power games.

A future with these changes would be a motive for action today. But there's much more urgent action needed, to stop wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Chechnya, Tibet and countless other places. The amount of physical and psychological damage produced right now exceeds most likely the current capacity of worldwide healers of all kinds, the amount of teaching capacity required to resocialise politician, bankers, bureaucrats and other parasiticly feeding humans is not there yet either.

If we'd compared the evolution of mankind to the development of a human being, it would be just about the age for kindergarten. Don't be fooled by the lack of expression, the emotional game play looks just the same. The most favorite toy is oil, unfortunately it's not a harmless sand pit squabble but the end of the current human existence for millions.

The collective human body undergoes some chemo-therapy right now, and invasive surgery is next on the list. Once the cancer government is gone, healing can commence.

I can't promise that our climate won't kill us once we stop killing each other. I call it hypocritical to want to save the planet's life and do nothing to stop the useless daily deaths.

Consciousness (or just personal responsibility) are not yet part of the political and economical game that produced this crisis-meme. A carbon tax for carbon based life demonstrates the level of unconscious sanity politics suffers from.

change climate current death dominant existence game general global government human kill level life mankind matter maybe meme planet produced species stop survive

created at TagCrowd.com

Global Whining

Our planet offers an amazing abundance, basis for all sort of life. All these life forms have co-evolved with their Umwelt, the climate being part of this Umwelt. Simply being alive means altering the enviroment, transforming food into energy for movement and into various metabolic byproducts.

The abundance of life-sustaining 'stuff' becomes fairly obvious when one considers the amount of energy currently used to propagate a global scare campaign about the climate. It's quite amazing to see how much pollution is created to squabble about global warming. If someone believes strongly that Co2 is the culprit for seemingly catastrophic climatic changes, why don't they use modern technology like video conferencing instead of physically traveling around, creating masses of Co2 in the process?

Which logic dictates that it's okay to destroy old growth forests, which are nature's carbon dioxide traps, when 'climate change' is of such importance? But logic and reason, so it seems, are not part of any proposed solution to the perceived problem.

Rhetorics dictate the media discourse, the old meme 'us vs them' makes 'climate change deniers' to Holocaust deniers, all the while none of the participants of official talks shows any sign of personal responsibility. Politicos claim scientists have found the truth, citizens trust into their politicos, especially if those don't follow their own opinion, but those of impeccable and infallible scientists.

That's right. In any given time of history, scientific knowledge was incomplete, and most assumptions and conclusions wrongly oversimplified. But now, in the 21st century, thanks brilliant fundamentalists like Dawkins, that has changed. Scientists stopped to err, like the Oracle of Delphi they cannot but tell the 'truth'. In earlier times of history saints channeled divine truth to their communities, now scientists are blessed with this job. Hurray, finally I can stop to think for myself, I just find a scientist to answer all my questions.

One of the factors that taints the credibility of contemporary science is the idea of causation. Let's take a simple example, a man stabbed with a knife in his heart. Obviously, the knife caused the death of the man, but it's not weapons, but people that kill people, so the 'cause of death' is the stabber. The 'stabber', however, is not primarily a cause of death, any investigator would look for a motive.

Neither the knife, nor the stabber, nor the combination of knife and stabber suffices as 'cause' for death. The amount of detail about the circumstances of that killing event is theoretically limitless, a judge would certainly require lots more than I made up on the spot to determine whether the deed will be penalised as murder, as man slaughter or as act of self-defense.

Any credible scientist will avoid stating any definite causal chain, as our planetary climate is a highly complex system. System theory as a discipline of science is less than a century old. Chaos theory, an offspring of system theory, became popular during the 1980s, and most definetely deserves consideration when attempting to make predictions about the climate. A 'young' science like that is highly prone to be wrong, new territory needs time for exploration before usable pathways are found.

Mankind is part of the 'finite' system planet Earth, and its activities, especially the technological aspects, affect the entire system. The pollution of man made industry spread through the atmosphere around the globe, it sounds retarded to deny human influence to its environment. Many cultures in history ended in ecological desasters, the lack of understanding of the interconnectedness of nature doomed many civilisations.

If mankind would want to learn from history, than treating nature with more respect must be the consequence. Indigenous people managed to survive for centuries, until globalisation destroyed the balance of their Umwelt. Only sustainable approaches to live with the natural environment succeeded, imposing control over nature with anthrocentric approaches always ended in doom.

It sounds quite hypocritical to claim that controlling CO2 emissions will avert an almost certain catastrophe. Most contemporary species have survived for millions of years on this planet, with about 30,000 years we have just started to use our survival potential as species on this planet. The thought of us (mankind) wiping ourselves off the planet in maybe only a century is way too pessimistic for me to buy into, although I certainly believe that we have the technological capacity to exterminate all human life on this planet.

But okay, let's assume for a second that reducing Co2 in the atmosphere will safe the planet. First priority then should be the preservation of existing 'carbon sinks', which is good old rain forest, saved from activists around the planet since the 1970's, nevertheless shrinking at an alarming rate. Instead of getting hyperactive simply doing less. Less rain forest killed means less heavy machinery running on fossil fuel, less global transport of those goods, and mainly a living ecosystem binding massive amounts of Co2.

And course, reducing emissions at the same time, or at least, not increasing them. Although I'm not a friend of nuclear power, generating energy in this way certainly wouldn't contribute to more Co2. Instead of hailing Iran for its nuclear program as spearhead for non-carbon based energy production, she is demonised. Instead using Australia's sunny predisposition to become world leader in solar technology, sun-deprived Germany, smaller than Victoria, generates more solar energy than entire Australia.

O wait, there's a catch. In global fascism nobody beats its own drum, all march in step. Those hippie ideas of saving forests and green technology creates too much autonomy, and require different solutions for different areas. Once the sheeple have grazed the idea of Co2 causation, their next meager meal is a hidden tax to finance a trading scheme.

The fear mongering in the name of science is already hard to swallow, but a positive influence of trading on the climate sounds like a pretty drug-crazed idea. It's a bit like reinventing the rain-dance, just in a suit, without music, dance and others to pick up the bill. Please, my local politico-parasite, present me a scientist to prove that trading cools this planet, and until then, stop the systematic rape of nature in this country.

century climate co2 death energy forest global history idea instead kill knife life man mankind nature planet science scientists sounds system technology umwelt

created at TagCrowd.com

Carbon Trading Scheme



For once in the life time of this young nation, Australia wants to set an global example. Australia's responds to the Climate Change meme with a Carbon Trading Scheme, or at least tries to.

In the pre-digital age Australia was too remote from the 'civilised' world (Europe and North America) to have a voice in international politics. The acting empire of the time nevertheless involved the Australian army happily as cannon fodder in wars all over the world, a big part of the Australian National identity consists of bemoaning this useless loss of life while fulfilling 'heroic duties'.

Advances in communication and travel made Australia more accessible and brought it a little bit more on the international radar. Nevertheless, 20 million people on a planet of 6 billion can only interest a limited amount amount of people. Among those are poor and desperate people from Asia and Africa, that even keep up to date with the latest administration changes in Canberra. Although politicos claim rock star status on national level, Mr. Howards war against asylum seekers went unnoticed in most parts of the world.

Mr. Howard lost the position of primary defender of white Australian supremacy to Kevin Rudd, who recently gained global fame as roo killer. Most people involved in the planetary debate about climate change would fail to name Rudd's position in the creation of the next stage of global monetary Ponzi scheme, sorry, Rudd's position towards climate change.

From an Australian perspective his stance toward climate seems more obvious, he wants to introduce a trading scheme to tackle the problem of global warming caused by man made co2. Hold on a second, what exactly do this well sounding abstract terms mean?

The simplified mass media presentation of the 'problem of climate change' goes along that lines: A majority of climate 'experts' interpret data about global warming in a way that suggest CO2 produced by man as 'cause' for this effect. Critics of this interpretation are called 'climate sceptics', and are often pushed into one corner with conspiracy theorists and similar loonies.

The simplified discourse, popularised by George W Bush (you're either with us, or you're a climate sceptic terrorist), helps picking a site. The polarisation follows also the diversion between Dawkinists and religious fundamentalists. 'Science' backs the side of doomsday salesmen, and in our o so rational society one cannot seriously doubt the findings of science, right?

Interestingly, 'science' also backs the other side, so both sides get busy accusing each other of 'wrong science'. Luckily for us, who will have to pay for whatever lunacy is presented as 'solution' to this 'problem', the wise maintainers of our tax money have taken sides for us. They chose the side that allows them to collect more money for their uncontrollable disposal.

I confess my interest in global affairs, I believe my existence as human being entitles me to live where ever I want you, unfortunately this complicated phase of the evolution of human society denies me this natural birth right. The pleasures of every day life, however, require resources from all the world, I think it's quite absurd that the component of the computer I'm typing this rant on might have travelled further around this globe than I have so far. We can no longer distinguish easily 'local produce' and 'globally sourced' products, most manifactured products use materials from all over the world. You need to a lot of ignorance to deny the global interconnectedness of modern life.

Australia owns one of this valuable resources for an industrialised society: coal. It does not help this part of Australia's economy much to have this market taken away by penalising the use of coal for its CO2 emissions. All of a sudden the clear dichotomy of 'right' and 'wrong' science concerning an intangible problem gets mixed up with tangible local business interests, so that discussion of the topic itself degenerate to the usual rhetorical mud slinging.

When we talk about 'global climate', we mean a phenomena happening in a layer roughly 20 km wide above the surface of this planet. Powered by the energy coming from the sun, the 510 million square kilometer surface area interact with the gaseous layer above, distributing water around the globe. Roughly 70 percent of this surface area consists of water, up to 11 km deep, and weather phenomena are obviously linked to this watery quality.

But science does not really understand how this complex interaction develops. The sheer size of the object of scientific prophecy makes long term predictions very doubtable. Mankind has a natural interest in weather phenomena, agricultural societies depend on knowledge of the chance of seasons and the most likely accompanying weather patterns. But we can not seriously claim to have sufficient data of the relevant variables collected to come up with really good model.

In the political debate the focus lays on CO2, sometimes Methan rears its smelly head in discussions as well. Calling these chemicals greenhouse gases creates convenient self fulfilling prophecies: Doomsday is neigh!

But how do we know about the 'effect' of CO2, and how do we do know how much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Remember, we're talking about the volume of our planetary atmosphere, stretching 20km up from a surface of 510 million square kilometers. Pretty big, eh? The only thing possible is sampling, but without clear understanding of the system itself we can hardly estimate what information the samples really carry.

The best observed variable in this game is temperature, and that's where most panic is hinged around. We can observe an increase in average temperatures in different areas of this planet, and swamped islands provide obvious evidence for a rise of the sea level. Yet even the increase in average temperatures depends on the timescale and areas selected, a lot of pseudo scientific arguments are build on skewed data.

The alleged stop in trend of warming lately, which didn't help to break the current drought in Victoria, might be just the use of rough science. Changing the global albedo by chemtrails reduces the amount of solar energy that heats the surface, but without knowing what really happens in the upper layers of our atmosphere deliberately experimenting with nukes and chemicals does not really look like a good idea.

Reducing the amount of toxins we release into the atmosphere, produced by cars, power plants and industry seems like a better idea. If you ever lived next to a coal power plant, or in an area with heavy industry, or in a city overcrowded by cars, you'll instinctively know that this stuff is not really good for the survival of our species. The current target of panicky hyperactivity coincides with those polluters of our more immediate environment, which still fails to convince me about the simple 'more Co2 = more warming = global chaos soon' formula.

I can identify with the alleged targets, reducing the amount of dirt produced by burning fossil fuels, globally, yet I still don't buy into the simplified fallacies promoted with it. I deny to panic if 'nothing happens to tackle the problem'. I rather panic when a trading scheme gets implemented. It looks either ignorant or stupid or brazen to me to praise a financial product as solution to an ecological problem, especially in a year that showed the detrimental effects of inventing monetary schemes. Markets were always quite mysterious 'beings', now they can even cure the climate. Hooray, long live the age of reason.

Science is just not advanced enough to give a reliable prognosis about the development of climate for 50 or 100 years. I don't dare the leap of faith to base my current and future decisions on the prophecies of these kind of 'experts', especially if they attack such a massive problem. Science investigated most of the time dead matter, exploring and understanding of living systems as a systematic part of science is much younger than the time scales spanned by their prognosis.

The idea of the planet as a living system is not intellectual property of the scientific community, they could no longer deny the public interest in the experiental reality of life. Spiritual communities around the globe have no problem considering the planet as living being, although couldn't properly recite any specific story of this type.

So to distract from the fruitless intergroup competition about the meme global warming I ask Mother Earth to inspire me to tell the 'real story' about climate change.

After its birth, given by the sun, young mother earth circled playful around her own father. Looking for expression, she spit out lava, sending her tentacles into the atmosphere around her skins. The outburst of lava, at different places, created a fiery symphony of mother earth's breath. Soon her breath moistened, and fell back on her skin, bringing the four elements together.

The play of fire and water provided pleasure for mother earth, happily humming in sight of her heavenly father. O lovely daughter, her father said, I will nurture you for the rest of my life, but you will have to learn to keep my love. I send you out with enough energy to play with, Unlike me, you cannot shine from the inside, but glow on my rays. Enjoy the ride.

Mother earth felt her skin, hardened surfaces poking out of swaying oceans, and tried to sense the connection to her source. Without heat, the pleasant bubblyness she bathed in, would cease. Bacteria were her first messengers sensing the presence of her father, using his energy to transmit the good news.

Sensing her fathers presence filled her with joy, so mother earth wanted to connect more to gift of her father. Her senses became more complex, and with it her wisdom about the wonders of life. Capturing her fathers energy requires a delicate balance, and sometimes her breath poisened the atmosphere, making the skin shiny by layers of ice.

Her endless desire for more beauty and love for her father made mother earth experimental. Her senses worked independent, creating more and more complexly interconnected balanced systems. But those sensors capable of choosing to merge with the beauty of all life can also choose to destroy the balance required for their own survival.

Mother earth likes diversity, capturing her father's rays in myriad of ways. That makes her feel warm, buzzing, cosy, vibrant, alive. Many species happily became mother earth companions, mankind seems close to make up its group mind whether to go for beauty or destruction.

Millions of years pass away fast for mother earth, having a little fever doesn't disconnect her from her father. A disconnected acting mankind destroys the balance for its own survival, and the tool will be Global Government.

amount area around atmosphere australia climate co2 earth energy father global life mother planet problem really scheme science senses surface system warming world

created at TagCrowd.com

Meme war

There's a problem that seems rather strange.
It's now known as Climate Change,
It was once called Global Warming,
but that was way too alarming.

Yet alarmed we shall be,
about melting poles and rising sea,
floods, droughts and raging storms
as our climate hazardly transforms.

A war of words has erupted,
and logic has been corrupted.
Yet no one will unveil
that the problem isn't real -
It's just another part of the wicked game
of killing democracy while keeping its name.