Well, phone calls all round the Liberal base. Do we vote for an ETS to avoid a double dissolution and putative electoral annihilation, or do we fight it because it is right to do so and the tide is turning?

The fear is that rejecting will lead to a double dissolution election in February with Abbott as leader. Not a great option, as for independents my guess is Abbott is as attractive as Joe Tripodi. And lead to the possibility of 3 elections in the wilderness if the Liberals are wiped out. The option instead? Install Hockey, vote for the ETS and spend 6 months reuniting the party. Hah! a party where the majority don’t want to vote for the ETS. Good luck with that unity thing.

It’s lose-lose for the Liberals. Since it is likely the Liberals will lose the next election anyway, and the chance remains that the CRU emails will hit the mainstream eventually, the other option is for the Liberals to take the short term electoral hit, position as the party of reason and science, and ride the wave of AGW rejection that will flow across the rest of the world over the next 5 years.

In political terms, not terribly appealing either.

But at least the ETS, the AGW religion, the deficits, the workplace relations and so on will all be seen to be Rudd’s doing. No co-responsibility. A principled stand. Better to lose principled than lose populist.

Those who would take our liberty from us are growing impatient.  They have seen a door opened to them with the election of the mOssiah, Chairman Maobama, and they are emboldened by America’s forced dash towards socialism.  Yet you, the American people, still stand in their way.

It is you, the American people, who can stop and unseat our corrupt elected representatives.

It is you, the American people, who can stop Barack Hussein Obama from pushing us off the cliff of socialism.

It is you, the American people, though it may be difficult, who can recover from the near destruction of our economy.

It is you, the American people, the people of the greatest nation the earth has ever known, the people who made America the shining beacon of freedom around the globe, who stand in the way of an unelected global government who will strip your freedom and wealth from you.

The true agenda behind the global warming/climate change agenda has been revealed by its own proponents.  Global governance is their aim.  On the surface that can only mean lowering your standard of living, taking your wealth, taking your freedom, and giving it to those who have not earned it.  Those pushing for global governance have told us they want to do this.  But what aren’t they telling us?  As is always the case with any liberal proposal, what they tell you and what they really mean are two entirely different things.  The chances that what they steal from us will ever make it into the hands of the African tribesmen or Pygmies in the outback of Australia is remote at best.  They will never see any benefit from wealth stolen from us.  That wealth will only be used to line the pockets and consolidate the power of those who form this global government.

What can we do to aid the less fortunate around the world?  Can it be done without a one-world government?  How can it be done?  The answer is simple.

American exceptionalism and capitalism.

America has ALWAYS been the most generous nation on earth.  We have ALWAYS given more than all other nations combined to those less fortunate nations.  We have ALWAYS been the first on the scene providing aid when there is a natural disaster somewhere in the world.  How have we been able to do this?  Because our American ingenuity, and capitalist free market system have always produced more than we need.  When that system is destroyed, there will be nothing left to give.  When you destroy the wealthy and those who produce wealth, you are left with nothing a-la “Atlas Shrugged.”  Obama and the rest of the liberal elites are using class warfare to justify their increased taxation of the wealthy and middle class.  I will leave you with this short story that explains quite well what is happening.

How Taxes Work . . .(not an original work, author unknown)

Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man, the richest, would pay $59.

That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until one day the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers?  How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too . . . It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest?

Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

EU President claims 2009 first year of global governance

November 25, 9:38 AM
St. Louis Conservative Examiner
Andrea Simoncic

According to recent statements by the EU’s President, Herman van Rompuy, the year 2009 will mark the first year of global governance. The EU President, a former Belgian Prime Minister, mentioned this in a recent speech upon confirmation of his presidency. Said the newly confirmed EU President, “2009 is the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.” This claim has given rise to fears of a possible coup of the American government if the proposed Copenhagen Climate Treaty is signed by President Obama in December.

The climate treaty, it is theorized, would mandate that wealthier nations redistribute up to 2% of their annual gross domestic product to third-world countries in reparation for so-called “climate debt.” In other words, it mandates a handout from richer nations to poorer nations, based on the spurious scientific evidence of global warming. Evidence which has recently proven to be falsified, according to the leak of information from Hadley CRU.

The foundation for these fears that U.S. Sovereignty will be usurped result from a section on governance in the treaty, beginning on page 22 of the proposal. Some believe it would create an unelected world government with direct control over all financial and trading markets, plus the direct power to intervene over the heads of elected governments in the economic and environmental affairs of the nations which sign the Treaty. It is on this basis that some fear the U.S. may lose its sovereignty if President Obama signs this treaty, and Congress ratifies it into law. Among those who warn against the treaty is British Lord Monckton, the former science advisor to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Whether or not these fears and suspicions are well-founded, however, the new EU President nonetheless has displayed a worrying presumption in regards to other nations. Certainly Americans would do well to be vigilant regarding this matter, particularly concerning the devaluation of the dollar, and China’s past urgings to accept a global currency. Yet America has not surrendered her sovereignty, despite the EU President’s implied assumptions that America, along with other nations, will indeed bow to the authority of a one world government in the future. Indeed, many recent reports have sounded the death knell for this treaty. Regardless, America must stand firm against those who would seize or coerce unrightful power; American must not and cannot cede its sovereignty to any person or entity. That means you, too, President van Rompuy.

For more information, please visit:

UN Framework for Convention for Climate Change (Most recent version of the proposal)

Obama says ’step closer’ to climate deal

All hope is lost for Copenhagen climate treaty, British officials say

APEC Concedes Copenhagen Climate Treaty Out of Reach

Instrument of Repudiation Petition Opposing Treaty of Copenhagen
+

Hello there!

Great news today that China is going to go to Copenhagen and talk targets on climate change. In a way it is surprising seeing as a developing country it is understandable that China is worried about potential harm to its economic growth from climate change targets. As a communist dictatorship it is even more surprising that they care what the rest of the world thinks on this issue, but maybe they have come round to the widely held view that it is in all of our interests to do something concrete about climate change?

Personally I am convinced that climate change is a serious problem and that human beings are contributing to it. The scientific opinion from those who know is overwhelming. Yes, history shows that there may well be a natural pattern and cause also, but the way in which we are burning up fossil fuels and failing to make that substantial move to renewables that we clearly should do is poor indeed.

So come on China, come on President Obama, and come on Europe! We need definite, radical action now, the Cumbrian floods have emphasised that, and only governments can make those major changes.

TTFN!
Gareth.

It’s only in the little details that the two top political parties are any different on climate change legislation. Although it only took a week for the major media to admit that a giant wrench has been thrown into the anthropogenic global warming machinery with the CRU email hacks, the feeding frenzy has begun in earnest now. This makes it a rather inopportune time for the federal Conservatives to start trying to sell Canadians on the importance of enacting legislation to curtail CO2 emissions.

Jim Prentice was granted an op-ed in the National Post today to reveal how the government feels about the upcoming Copenhagen summit. He frankly admits that the objective is the replacement of the failed Kyoto Protocol with one that involves participants in a global commitment to fighting climate change.

His words are consistent with some of what the government has been saying on the file for a long time now. Developed nations cannot be the only ones to shoulder the burden of any legislation, and China and India must get on board with any binding targets. As Mr.Prentice observes, the nations who are paid under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, not being nations with energy producing sectors, are understandably “reluctant to relinquish the benefits of the current arrangement.”

Nevertheless, the federal government has admitted that it will do “exactly what we have consistently said we would do.” We will match any U.S. domestic CO2 cap and trade or capture programs. Called “continental harmonization”, it’s a fancy term for a backdoor carbon tax, since Barack Obama’s idealistic cap and trade legislation will force foreign companies to meet strict U.S. environmental regulations. One might even go so far as to say it’s a violation of NAFTA, and that this agreement is quite literally null and void.

The Conservative government has, in recent years, fought against the perception that they were unwilling to accept the scientific “consensus” of climate change. And now, at a time when the consensus has never been more in doubt, it’s troubling to see Mr.Harper make this the moment to start campaigning for such changes in Canada.

An interview with Dr. Ross McKitrick, professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, published in the National Post today, quotes the doctor as saying: “The prima facie case for a full audit of the science and the IPCC operating procedures has been met.”

With the consensus of the dire challenges facing us according to the IPCC now in question, will the Conservatives be prudent about rushing into enacting harmful legislation? Probably not. Mr.Prentice has admitted as much. This puts them in the same boat as the Liberal Party, who have now ditched the carbon tax in favour of the American-style cap and trade proposition.

While the science of anthropogenic global warming continues to be challenged in ever-growing numbers of dissidents and skeptics, we should be careful to consider how poisonous it can be for our government to openly accept the consensus. According to a recent EKOS poll, 23.4% of young adults aged 18-25 would vote for the Green Party, a political entity which is campaigning on the most aggressive measures to harming industry in Canada.

Unfortunately there appears to be a void in politics to represent the voices of those who don’t believe we should be following the rest of the planet on an inconclusive scientific theory. The Conservatives used to be that choice, but have since decided to put our trade interests with the United States ahead of the conclusion to that debate. How many billions of dollars and jobs may be lost before the science is finally “settled”? That’s a question we really need to ask our political leaders.

In the midst of the open warfare that has broken out between Federal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull and his Liberal Party climate change sceptics, Tony Abbott has confirmed that he will challenge Malcolm Turnbull for the Leadership in a battle that is likely to be played out on Monday.

The declaration comes in the wake of the mass shock resignations of the following conservative frontbenchers:

Tony Abbott – former Howard minister, opposition families, housing, community services and indigenous affairs portfolio.
Nick Minchin – Liberal powerbroker and leader of the opposition in the Senate.
Sophie Mirabella – early childhood education, childcare, women and youth portfolio.
Stephen Parry – Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate.
Eric Abetz – Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
Michael Johnson – Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives.
Tony Smith – Opposition assistant treasurer.
Mathias Cormann – Opposition parliamentary secretary
Mitch Fifield – Opposition parliamentary secretary
Brett Mason – Opposition parliamentary secretary

The ETS bill is due to be voted on in the Senate later today.

Malcolm Turnbull has gone on the offensive with a mass media blitz attacking the climate sceptics in the party and accusing them of damaging the Liberal party.

“The people that are opposing me within the party do not believe in climate change at all. They make John Howard look like a greenie,” he said.

“They are turning back the clock and Australians will punish us very, very severely at the next election if these guys have their way and we go to the election as the `do nothing on climate change party’ … we will get thrashed.”

Asked if he felt betrayed by Tony Abbott, Mr Turnbull struggled to find compliments.

“He’s a good friend, we go bike riding together. Tony Abbott is letting down the whole Liberal party.”

The conservatives within the Liberal Party have long been disenchanted with what’s been dubbed “The Turnbull Experiment.” In other words, having a more moderate leader at the helm in contrast to the traditional conservatives of the Howard, Costello, Abbott ilk.

Turnbull has slammed the conservatives, declaring that the future of the Liberal party as a progressive political force in the 21st century does not ly in a “do nothing” approach to climate change.

A defiant Turnbull says that he will not stand down.

“I will not step down. I’ll stay leader until the partyroom removes me as leader,” he said.

“I will not take a backward step, there’s too much at stake. It’s just not the credibility of the party.”

This dramatic split is without doubt one of the most significant events to emerge in recent political history. By Monday, the Liberal Party will be transformed into a new political beast. Whether it becomes a dramatically weakened moderate/progressive force or shifts further to the right as a diminshed but decidedly conservative entity remains to be seen.

Either way it is about to change. And that change is already underway.

Stay tuned for updates throughout the day.

UPDATE: 10:32am:

Just in from ABC Online:

Malcolm Turnbull:

“Whether it’s a double dissolution election or not, the issue in the mind of the Australian people boils down to ‘Which party can we trust to take effective action on climate change?’

“The party that the Australian people trust will win in a landslide – that is a political reality.

“Those people who advocate that we should become the ‘climate change do-nothing party’ are really underwriting the demise of the Liberal Party. It is as serious as that.”

Lutz Pfannenstiel

Lutz Pfannenstiel - Weltenbummler - Image (c) Lutz Pfannenstiel

“Jeden Tag bekam ich eine aufs Maul”

Einst schlägt der Weltenbummler eine Bayern-Offerte aus – und legt eine kuriose Profi-Laufbahn hin. Knast-Aufenthalt inklusive.

So lautete die Einleitung des heutigen Interview/Berichts bei Sport1.de in zwei Teilen. Der Mensch der nach seiner Karriere mehr als nur von sich behaupten und erzählen kann, ich wahr ein Star [... holt mich hier raus ...] .. sondern; Er ist der weltweit erste Fußballspieler, der in jedem der sechs anerkannten Kontinentalverbände einem professionellen Fußballverein angehörte und Geschichten auf Lager hat, die zu mehr als ein Buch/Roman reicht, wie dass neulich erschienene Buch

Lutz Pfannenstiel mit Christian Putsch: Unhaltbar – Meine Abenteuer als Welttorhüter, Rowohlt, Reinbek 2009, ISBN 978-3-499-62508-4

und glaubt man den Kritiken, die vom Geheimtipp bis zum Bestseller alles aufbieten, dürfte das sehr ereignisreiche Leben von Lutz Pfannenstiel, bald um einige Nuancen reicher sein.

Zur Person bei
Wikipedia dt/german // eng/english oder auf offizielle Webseite von Lutz

Das “Project” Global Goal
Pfannenstiels neuestes ehrgeiziges Projekt heißt “Global Goal“. Dabei will er mit spektakulären Fußballspielen an besonderen Orten auf die Gefahren des Klimawandels aufmerksam machen. Im Dezember 2010 ist ein Spiel in der Antarktis geplant,[3] weitere Stationen sollen das Amazonas-Gebiet, Nepal und Tansania sein. Unterstützt wird das Projekt von namhaften Stars, wie Aldair, Brian Laudrup, Carlos Valderrama, Cafu, Bebeto, Ole Gunnar Solskjær und Stig Tøfting.

respekt für diese bewegte und ereignissvolle Karriere als Fussballer und dem Eintrag ins Guinness-Buch der Rekorde.

In diesem Sinne
FFA

Some of you may have been following the scandal about the theft of data and emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, most likely by hackers paid by climate contrarians bent on undermining support for a deal on climate change at the rapidly approaching (and unravelling) Copenhagen meeting. As I did my PhD in CRU, and as I still have strong links to UEA, I might write a post about this little drama. But then again, I might not, as everybody else seems to be busy doing precisely that. So, in the meantime, here is a link to some of the most intelligent commentary on the whole affair.

The Daily Mash – CLIMATE CHANGE EMAILS STOP GLACIERS FROM MELTING

Posted using ShareThis

This beautiful blue sphere we call home is changing rapidly. Glaciers that have been holy shrines for thousands of year are melting http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1938688,00.html The world is changing dramatically. Is the planet cooling down or warming up or neither? Ask different scientists and get different opinions. I don’t think it has as much to do with man-made pollutants as the media would have us believe. The polar ice cap on Mars is also melting.

The yin and the yang, the constant state of flux everything remains the only constant. America seems destined to become a third world country, while the third world countries seem to be getting their acts together. Everything seems to be topsy-turvy.

Does this have anything to do with 2012? Does it matter? Would it make any difference one way or the other? Could it be stopped? This beautiful blue planet has been on this spinning around the Sun for tens of thousands of years and has passed through the magical galactic center countless times. The planet earth still exists. Each pass through the galactic center brings major change. Will this time be catastrophic? Who knows? I don’t and I don’t think anyone else does, either.  What if the cartoon below is true…….

So why am I writing this post on Thanksgiving Day? Because I am thankful, thrilled, grateful, delighted to be alive right now in this moment and taking part in these scary fun times. The past is history and the future is undetermined. All we have is this marvelous moment, the eternal now.

And remember, each of us chose to be here during this time of change – to polish our souls and move closer to “graduation” !  Our physical forms are of the earth, but remember, we are immortal spirits having a very human experience!

For a little closing humor about 2012, click here:

http://www.passion-paris.com/flash.html#myreel=v790&page=d69&video=v790

A couple of weeks later than promised, but let me get back to the WEO2009 and its climate scenarios. Here’s what the news were saying:

Cost of extra year’s climate inaction $500 billion: IEA | Green Business | Reuters.

The world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming

In its Climate Change report, the IEA considers the world needs to keep the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere below 450ppm, to assure temperature does not rise more than 2 degrees Celsius globally. In page 12 of the downloadable excerpt, they describe this being an overshoot trajectory, with concentration peaking at 510ppm in 2035, staying there for some 10 years and then dropping down. Sounds risky, but anyway.

What the report also does is to put a price tag on the reductions needed (calculates the area beneath the Marginal Abatement Curve): $10.5 trillion in energy-related investment, of which 3/4 between 2020 and 2030, because that is where most reductions occur.

So, from an Intergenerational Equity I have to ask: if the burden of decarbonizing the economy falls so heavily in this generation, and it is for us to leave to the next generations a world even better than the one we received, does it make sense to borrow, now, against the future? Regardless of the cost? Borrow to invest, borrow like crazy, and share the bill? If it is our saving that will allow the next generations to live sustainably, how much would they be willing to share the burden with us?

Punchline: the question is always who gets the tab.

Produced by creative agency Propaganda, in association with iconic British band, Portishead, Dark Angel is a beautifully haunting rendition of Sophies story.

The Murder of Sophie Lancaster was a murder case in the United Kingdom in 2007. The victim was brutally attacked along with her boyfriend, Robert Maltby, while walking through Stubbylee Park in Bacup, Rossendale in Lancashire. As a result of her severe head injuries she went into a coma, never regained consciousness, and later died. The police said the attack may have been provoked by the couple wearing gothic fashion and being members of the goth subculture….

Essential Doom Metal Albums

Doom metal has its origins in the early 70’s, with heavy metal band Black Sabbath playing songs with slow riffing and dark, foreboding lyrics. In the ’80s, bands like Saint Vitus, Trouble, and Candlemass took those elements and warped them into what became known as doom metal. The genre spanned out in the early ’90s to include other musical genres, including death, thrash, and black metal to form a multitude of subgenres. Today, the genre is still going strong, especially in the underground scene. Check out our list of essential doom metal albums, and recommend ones you would add.

Essential Doom Metal Albums

Katatonia Interview

The latest CD from the Swedish band Katatonia is Night Is The New Day, which is getting great reviews and is destined to appear on many best of 2009 lists. I caught up with the band’s guitarist Anders Nyström, who is also in Bloodbath along with some of his Katatonia bandmates and members of Opeth. He gives the scoop on the new CD, the early days of Katatonia, the band’s upcoming tour plans, and if his former band Diabolical Masquerade will get back together.

The Top 6(66) Movies About Metalheads

Not only am I a metalhead, but I am a total movie junkie. I love ‘em. I’ve seen a lot of movies, and I’ve seen a lot of metal. So I figured, why not combine the two and pick out my five favorite movies about metalheads. Please note, I chose to leave out documentaries and

A Psychoanalytic Defense of Realism

A central aim of Bhaskar’s A Realist Theory of Science is to diagnose what he refers to as the “epistemic fallacy”. In a nutshell, the epistemic fallacy consists in the thesis, often implicit, that ontological questions can be reduced to epistemological questions. The idea here is that ontology can be entirely resolved or evaporated into an inquiry into our access to beings, such that there are no independent questions of ontology. As an example of such a maneuver, take Humean empiricism. As good Humean empiricists, we “bracket” all questions of the world independent of our mind and simply attend to our atomistic impressions (what we would today call “sensations”), and how the mind links or associates these punctiform impression in the course of its experience to generate lawlike statements about cause and effect relations.

Three ads from UNHCR / ACNUR. found in Refugees would like to have the same problems you have

More Insight on Those Leaked Climate Change Emails

[Image: "Earth Egg," from the CC-licensed Flickr stream of azrainman]

Cory told you earlier this week about the recent hacking at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, and the subsequent distribution of emails that some people say prove a global conspiracy to promote anthropogenic climate change contrary to evidence………….

……And now, I bring you a whole crap-ton of links……….:

The big two are on it – and the real important people sort it out among themselves. First, Mr Obama:

Obama will go to the December 7-18 talks in Denmark on December 9, the eve of a ceremony in nearby Oslo, Norway, where he will collect the Nobel Peace Prize, the White House said. … The White House said the United States will pledge in Copenhagen to cut its greenhouse gas emissions roughly 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, a drop of about 3 percent below the 1990 benchmark year used in U.N. treaties.

Then, Mr Wen:

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao will attend global talks in Copenhagen that aim to forge the basis of a new climate change treaty, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Thursday, calling the trip a show of cooperativeness.

And Mr Wen’s numbers:

China will reduce its carbon intensity — the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of GDP — 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels, the official Xinhua news agency reported on Thursday.

“This is a voluntary action taken by the Chinese government based on its own national conditions and is a major contribution to the global effort in tackling climate change,” Xinhua said, quoting the State Council or cabinet.

In the same day… I’ve said before that the age of cooperation needed a push. It seems the push has been achieved in the right place: behind the screen and the cameras, where agreements can be achieved without maniac screams from side to side.

Punchline: hope. And a question: who is, these days, the most important man alive?

Are we dreaming? Do we know when we fly? When do we go? Do we die? Can we live forever? Are you dreaming?” QUESTION! – System of a Down

Seeking an answer is sometimes a process when we go from obscurity to obscurity.

In a specific issue, I can experience that we are trying to prove that our answer is the right answer. We are in many cases forcing ourselves to respond on someone’s statement. When talking with one person, we feel very comfortable with answering things. We know that if the other person would disagree with us, we will be able to debate it with equal power (e.g. 50/50 %).

How do I feel when I question the other person? Even if the knowledge about the specific topic is the same for everyone or not, it could be okay with questioning. A question from one guy must not always be seen as a sign of absence to the topic to the other guy. We can accept that this person is curious about my knowledge and I feel good that this person is interested in what I am talking about. It is also a sign of presence.

How is it if we have a conversation between three people? For example, we can experience that two persons is included in the conversations and one person is excluded. If now the excluded person should ask a question, we can experience it as something annoying. It depends on how the question is asked!

Let’s say that the excluded guy asks the question in a challenging way. I could either feel offended, or I could feel confused. Does this person know more than I do? Often when we feel uncertainty we use our reptilian brain. That part of the brain is where we go when we want to survive. So uncertainty can be a feeling that tells us that we should defend ourselves! Trying to use a “deeper” part of the brain is often a way of dealing with these kind of situations.

Can I see this kind of thinking in society? (Reptilian brain versus “deeper” brain)

Yes I can? I can see it in how people are dealing with crisis. A crisis is something that we feel that we have to defend us to rather than find out the deeper meaning with it. If I should know that the see level should rise five meters and my country should be under water within five years; what should I do? Often, we should use our reptilian brain here. How are we suppose to solve this? What can I do to change myself and what can we do as a collective to change ourselves? Using our deeper part of the brain here, we can focus on the purpose of the crisis. Can we see a meaning why this crisis is happening? Is it a sign that I need to change?

I would suggest that rather than changing what’s bad, improving the things that feel right for you!

According to the climate crisis which is a very serious issue for humanity, we are often trying the “pull the handbrake solution”.  Suggestions such as geo-engineering are a great example of that! Geo-engineering is basically about to create places where we can store the pollutions, the carbon dioxide. Doing that, we keep the ice from melting or we keep the sea level from rising etc. Einstein said that “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”. This is exactly what geo-engineering is about. We think that we can find out technologies that stop the climate crisis mainly created by the industrial revolution and the consumption era.

So what is right for you?

Just to clarify some of the points I put across last week. At no point did I want to give the impression I was in favour of a reduction in fuel costs; I am in favour of petrol price increases as long as they going to offsetting the damage to the environment they cause. I am not 100% that this is happening as one of the main oil corporations made record profits when everyone else was making record losses, fuel prices were at their highest and jobs were being lost left, right and centre. Anyways, I was merely using this as an example of how our economy is addicted to carbon.

Moving on to the title of the blog… The Anglican Church has got it, last week, they issued a press release encouraging people not to use credit cards over the Christmas period and use cash instead. These principles are in line with those of the CAP Money course; if you can’t afford it don’t buy it. For the full article follow this link: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr10209.html. This really is good advice, it will help you to keep control of your budget and make sure that you are not spending money you don’t have Preventing you from ending up with a massive bill in January that nobody wants to have to deal with. Exciting news of people 9 who became Christians last week, one of them was 86. How amazing is that.

ASDA has now usurped Tesco as worst supermarket of the week, as they have an offer of any 3 items for £5, seems like a pretty simple offer doesn’t it… Trust me it’s not, because you can’t actually have any 3 items, you must have 3 of the same types of item, so raw meat with raw meat and cooked with cooked. Getting the picture? Well how about this curve ball, cheese, ham and Muller rice? I would also like to give Sainsbury an honourable mention as they managed to put Merlot in the fridge and we all know Merlot should only be in the fridge if it is a Rose Merlot. Tesco are not fully exonerated from their sins as they sent me an apology for the repeat email, but they are still not going to switch their own brand coffee to Fair Trade which sucks.

Today I started to swimming training again, as I am planning on doing an open water swim to raise money for CAP in summer 2010 swimming Lake Coniston, in the Lake District. Wasn’t a good start for me as I forgot my goggles, so now I have chronic red-eye!