where the fault lies (rip-offs, excess CO2)

 .. haw, haw, haw! ...

   .. double double entendre ...

     .. beat that - or someone gets hurt


First, a 'joke:' Two 'pilots' enter the cabin, after everyone is properly seated (luggage stowed in o-head lockers, or a few small bits under the seat in front of them; seat-backs upright and all seat-belts fastened). The 'pilots' have impenetrably black 'sun'-glasses on, and carry looong, white canes ... tap, tap, tap! The cockpit door closes behind them, the engines start then rev up - and slowly, the 'plane taxis out. After a short pause at the threshold, the 'plane ROARS down the runway ... seemingly interminably ... then, all of a sudden, the passengers all shriek! - And the 'plane soars into the air.

"Phew!" - says one 'pilot' to the other - one day, they're gunna shriek just that little bit too late!


What seems like a vast majority (as if it were some sort of 'democracy') - of our 'very best' scientists tell us, that excess CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere, as a result of human activity, namely the burning of 'fossil' carbon. (It wouldn't matter much, if all we burnt, we first grew. That'd be pretty-well 'sustainable.') But, in the first place it is a certain amount of CO2 that makes our planet as habitable as it has been, due to the so-called 'greenhouse' effect, and in the 2nd (and becoming more immediate case), this newly added, excess CO2 will lead to higher temperatures (somewhere). It stands to reason. Higher temperatures (somewhere) are likely to lead to more weather (Q: Why? A: Weather is just the world's way of transporting solar energy, mostly deposited near the equator, to the N&S poles, where it more easily radiates away into space.) Here, 'more weather' is assumed to be not a good thing. (Think: more floods in some parts, more fires, droughts etc. in others. Just like in Aus these past few years.) Except:

There are certain people who either do *not* accept, do not *wish* to accept, or outright *decry/deny* anthropomorphic climate change - for various reasons - but obviously not long-term 'self-preservation' ones. One assumes that the non-acceptors and especially the *deniers*, are going for some (very!) short term, self-advantage; like - err, coal diggers & sellers, say. Or perhaps they're 'merely' erring ideologues.

Thesis: that our democracies are dysfunctional. Well, again 'everybody' knows, that a) the sheople are dumbed-down, b) are fed on a diet of 'disinformation' - when not outright, propagandistic lies (listening, Aunty?) and c) the elected representatives, themselves drawn from an effectively non-choice pool - tend (massive understatement) to represent anyone *but* we, the sheople. All given; democracy kaput.

But the 4th: what if our democracies were ever so slightly responsive, to the vicissitudes of expressed opinion?

Well, then; in such a case, it is the 'climate sceptics' (as the loudest, most easily accommodated 'squeaky wheel') - who are currently 'in control' (also obviously, since nothing effective is being done). When the penny finally drops and the sheople all shriek *climate catastrophe!* - well, then, we can at least lay blame where it belongs - by all means the coal diggers & sellers, but especially those self-same climate sceptics, who 'drove' the weak and lily-livered 'decision makers,' our so-called politician 'leaders.' If so-called 'leaders' are unresponsive, or listen to the wrong voices, AND TAKE WRONG OR NO EFFECTIVE ACTION, then no matter what the 'excuse,' it's leadership failure.


It will not help, of course, after the fact - but at least we'll know who to lynch. The fault very definitively lies with the representatives who fail to properly represent, but (the last); IF representatives are at all responsive THEN they are presumed to have misbehaved based on those filthy liars, the climate-sceptic spruikers.


PS Q: What's about the joke?

A: Silly question; how soon is too late?

No comments:

Post a Comment