On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:33:31 +0100, Aubrey Meyer 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Jonathon Porritt yesterday called for "radical action to prevent a 
>climate catastrophe" and then endorses BP's hew scheme ["TargetNeutral" 
>see below].
>
>Joined by other Green Luvlies Ed Mayo et al, JP endorses BP's scheme 
>into which motorists can now pay £20/year [to BP's 'charity'] for 
>motoring and consciences cleansed of emissions and impact. Jonathon's 
>comment is, this will make people 'carbon-literate' [sic].
>
>As Eliza Doolittle said; "Words Words Words, I am so sick of Words!!"
>
>It gets worse . . . then comes the clearest and crassest example of [is 
>it?] 'involuntary dishonesty' [I have no way of knowing] in the climate 
>change policy debate.
>
>The new title of the "Stop Climate Chaos" lobby is [hold your breath . . 
>. .!] "I Count" [sic - Don't wet your pants] . . . If only that were true.
>http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/digital/article/588948/climate-
change-campaign-drive-recruit-supporters/ 
>
>
>It is 'carbon-numeracy' that is needed. "I count" should promise so much 
>but its authors have a history of delivering so little. The trouble is 
>that the opposite is true - they <don't count> and they <won't count> 
>i.e. emissions:concentrations build-up per unit time and the C&C rates 
>needed to avoid a climate catastrophe.
>http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/rising_risk.pdf
>
>And it is precisely because the leadership of this campaign [Greenpeace 
>WWF etc al] <don't> count [and indeed refuse to numerate or to be 
>accountable about that], that the policy debate flounders from bad to 
>worse and the commercial sector goes deeper and deeper into dither and 
>drift [see FT below].
>
>Read the history of this here: -
>http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/RSA_Occasional_Paper.pdf
>
>The White Coats won't take the consequences of their insights, so the 
>government blesses the 'no-focus-groups' and public resources are 
>marshalled all over again again into creating the problem faster than we 
>even contemplate [let alone count] trying to solve it . . . . e.g. yet 
>more cut-price air-travel - you can just see Ryan Air offering to 
>fart-in-a-jar to reduce impact.
>
>The climate camp should read the riot act . . .
>http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/349015.html
>
>Pentcho, Walt - The crisis is immediate; it is not whether the speed of 
>light is constant or not, the crisis is our passivity in the face of the 
>collapse of common sense.

I agree. The fact that scientists have been worshipping the false principle 
of constancy of the speed of light and its idiotic corollaries (e.g. I 
measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower 
than yours) for a century just confirms your conclusion. Perhaps we are a 
suicidal civilization. George Orwell has predicted all that:

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you 
would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that 
claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely 
the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was 
tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common 
sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for 
thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we 
know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or 
that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world 
exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" 

Pentcho Valev
[log in to unmask]