A virtual space of bare floor-boards on which to practice and invent the social art of tango philosophy.
Hi Justine,I read your article in the SMH (10/6/11) and that way found out about your blogsite, which I've only had a chance to look at briefly so far. As a longtime spiritual seeker drawn to both Buddhism and the Quakers (as well as to anarchism and Marxism), I feel some affinity with what I've read of your blog postings so far.However, when it comes to the hard talk about political issues in the public sphere, where spiritual sensibilities command little respect, a different language, in my opinion, is required. I offer, as an example of an insightful examination of issues around climate change politics the following. It ain't very spiritual, but it's the best analysis I've seen so far.http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2751414.htmlCheers,Paul Rubner.
Hi Paul, thanks for the link to the Drum article - very thought provoking. It's true my piece wasn't political in the sense of analysing what should/shouldn't be done in terms of concrete measures - it was more about what the debate shows about our society, and trying to expose some assumptions that underlie the kind of divisiveness that blocks real responsibility. I think the article you cite (and happily it's not alone) begins from a position that sidesteps the problems I was focusing on.Regarding the idea that spiritual sensibilities command little respect in the public sphere, I think that's a reason for trying to demonstrate the relevance of such sensibilities rather than falling silent (though I do take your point about the need to talk the language of the people you want to communicate with).Good to hear from you! Justine
"I doubt that many people question the truth of climate change because they truly find the science inconclusive"I agree with much of what you say regarding emotion and "religion" in your article but disagree with the above statement which seems to state the science is conclusive. See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7 for one source of alternates scientific views from US Senate Committee.
The establishment position on this matter is that all scientists of repute accept that human releases of carbon dioxide are a great danger to us; they will change the climate in a catastrophic fashion. This is not only the starting point but it is the very foundation of the campaign to stop climate change. And no reasonable person could disagree with that claim, surely?What if we were to find that huge numbers of top flight scientists from top flight universities and other scientific institutions were to disagree with this position? What if we were to find that professors from Harvard, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Princeton, and Stanford, and the various great Universities of California at San Francisco and San Diego and Los Angeles, and other great institutions, were to publicly state that they not only rejected the idea that human carbon dioxide emissions were inducing any dangerous climate change but that they were convinced that the proponents of this theory were betraying the basic principles of scientific enquiry? What if we were to find that among these men and women are scientific greats, men whose relation to physics and chemistry and atmospheric studies is similar to that of Fred Hollows in relation to eye surgery? In that case we would see that statements like "he refuses to accept the science" are empty and dishonest. There is no real "science of global warming." There are a multitude of scientists from many disciplines who have examined this subject and have come to a variety of conclusions, and many of impeccable qualifications totally reject the claims of a coming catastrophe.If we were to know that this is the case, and a half an hour of looking will show that it is, then we would wonder why these dissenting voices are not heard in the mainstream media, the Herald, the ABC and the Australian.(As much as the Greens hate him, it is well known that Rupert Murdoch accepts that human carbon dioxide will endanger us.)Even without knowing about the ferocious dispute at the top levels of science, an ordinary, intelligent observer might wonder why, if the ABC is so certain that CO2 is such a danger, it uses such low and dishonest tricks as showing visuals of smoke (a form of carbon) coming from chimneys when it discusses carbon caused climate change, (which it claims is brought about by CO2, a totally invisible gas)?Why does Tim Flannery, the chief global warming prophet in Australia, rabbit on about the completely fictitious Gaia, which can only be accepted by a leap of religious faith? An ordinary intelligent person can smell the lies, the religious zeal, the spin, the propaganda and the enormous self-interest of the alarmists who, like Flannery and Garnaut, are paid fortunes to promote this faith.
Hey mate Im a Climate Change Atheist Denier & Scum of the earth. I take long showers till the water goes cold. I drive a V8 Landcruiser 8 Seater on my own. I have a v8 7.4 litre Chev in my boat. I dont prance around like a hippy during earth hour, I turn on all the lights in protest to your Gaia worshipping commie controlling religion. Looks like Im going to hell. By the way I help organise the anti Carbon Tax Rallies, I am the the new rebell punk of the new age. So stick that in your pipe & smoke it.
Post a Comment