How come we get churchmen in charge ?

How does a Rudd or an Obama get into politics? "I thought we were all secularists here "...and had dismissed forever the place of " religion" .

suddenly as if by some revelation, Jounos realise when they see the election of a new president in the US ---- they don't understand what's happening . Not as though they do really understand whats' happening ----its just that at rare times the high priests realise they don't realise why things are happening as they are. Some of their theology is not working.

If you don't understand ,,,
EITHER you have been wearing blinkers ( people in power often act in faith)
AND/OR you don't already know how they get into politics
OR

Maybe you are so one sided about secularism that you can't see its not very sustainable -



(Journalist don't understand much about real communities because they aren't part of them as much as they think .)

You mean sport yes well Ok but, even there you need emotion dummies.
Press are in a mess trying to work out why emotional even spiritual people get into power .
We are supposed to be a secular society - thats our greatest calim to fame acording to many .
Pity they don't read history - secularism is a fad limiting ones mind to this world and what we know about it .
A friend of a famous fabian said almost a century ago that " there was something ironic in the name atheists chose when they called themselves Secularists . By definition they had tied themselves to a fashion of this world that passeth away .... They have not got vision or conviction, mastery of their work ,loyalty of their household or any form of human dignity" ........because they deny such bigger things are out there.

Warning fatique

Fearmongers at the ABC and the Age don't seem to realise that not only are we not convinced global warning is happening but the lack of " what should we do if it is" puts enormous brakes on any progress in the debate .If it is happening the media are doing a very poor job of convinving us not only about that, but about what we should do to change it - especially when they get as fanatical as they are about it at the ,moment . They insist , like they did over the ozone layer, that its carbon dioxode emmisions when incident radiation hitting the earth has to do much much more heating of the air than any excitement created in the atmosphere by a few more sparsely located co2 molecules. land calearing is much more likley to influence the weather than c02 which is rapidly recycled into plants all around the world keeping co2 levels at very low levels - despite our burning of foosil fuels .
Nothing is more stupid in this whole debate that the ignorant capture of the idea of the grenhouse effect by the non scientific fearmongers. The focus of the greenhouse effect is clearly not on rising temperatures in the greenhouse (that happens without C02 rise and for different reasons ) but on the opportunity that a closed room has for increasing the level of co2 slightly, triggering the photosyenthetic effect of increased growth rates in plants . Plants at least aren't worried such perhaps we should talk to them more - we cerainly are listeneing to the ABC and the Age less and less.



Its almost like the media are making the same superficail mistake they made with ozone . We are naughty boys by burning foisil fuels therfore the gods will judge us. There must be consequences for our carelessness. Possibly yes but not by focusing on items in new scienetist that appeal to the latest doodsdayers news hunters .

Why are the media so intent on throwing this stuff at us > i mean the reporrt of A UN conferenece made headline news last night and the dill reported a 90% chance of being unequivocal (or something equallly laughable).The UN report covers its own betting by listsing a whoile raft of factors other than just carbon so just quietly don't bank on anyone banking on a thin and emphemiral and quickly recycled element like CO2 being the culprit . The ABC reporters are getting so desperate that they use the word deniers to anybody who doesn't agree with them or the Un (must be most of us)The ABc sound more like church every day on some subjects.

Making Panic history-?

This blog was set up becase it seems to me, history ( i hope blogger lasts one hundred years!) will prove that the effect of increased carbon dioxide emissions over the last one hundred years, will prove to be no more than an irrational anthromorphic myth .

My prediction in january 2006 is that the worriers will find some other reason to suggest the earth is warming up . Maybe in 2010 the quick fixers will focus on "the immediate risk of rapid earth cooling and what WE, meaning largely OTHERS should do about it . " The problem with CO2 wooriers in 200.. is that they make evryone talk about it so much , it is NOW assummed to be a threat. Seeking not solutions but the power over others?- - sometimes at least

see ABC science for reasons why it may not be such an impoortant area for ACTION and why all the rushed investment in everything from talkfests to redone research is much les imporant than making poverty history.