Don Brash – a believer or a disingenuous tout?

Heard Don Brash being interviewed on Checkpoint last night. If I hadn’t had an eye on the cost, I’d have been replacing both speakers this morning. There are two parts to my frustration – the Brash story, and the standard of the interview.

Brash – so help us – represents the thinking that has driven us since 1984. Even then, folk like me could have (and did) predict we’d be hereabouts about now. I’m on record, somewhere in the Hocken, as a Silverpeaks County Councillor back in 86 or 87, stating that we should be looking at a ‘bus on rails’ approach to satellite commuting, to be ready for peak oil. I had a copy of the Club of Rome graph, and although I’d never done economics, I’ve done enough now to know that they were right.  Continue reading


Makes you think

As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t hold with all of Stanifords stuff, but he doesn’t lie, and it’s worth contemplating for the think, alone. I’d rate this ‘half there’.

What to make of this?

She’s onto it.

and she even uses my language:

The government and the media have not been telling us the truth, in several respects:

And ain’t that the truth……

Jane Goodall – stunningly inspirational.

We went to the Jane Goodall lecture last night. 6,7,8, lecture theatres, more than 2000 people. Jennie picked up the Uni’s wee faux-pas – all the seats in the main theatre were taken by University folk – pre release.

There must have been some rumbles, as we (in another theatre) were asked to stay after, and Jane Goodall would come and answer questions. A sweetener, then.

As to the lecture, though, I can’t remember seeing a more spell-bound audience, nor had my own attention kept so strongly, for so long. She gets it in spades. Everything, including degradation, pollution, population…….

I think the thing I noticed most, was that she uses the Ghandi/Mandela/Aung San Suu Kyi approach – so different from muggins…..

Stunning, it was. Good questions later, particularly on re Jared Diamond……..

Truth – purveyance of

I’ve long come to the conclusion that our species will not address the issues before it. It will deny, obfuscate and mangle the science (as with Climate Change) until it convinces itself that no action need be taken. It would be blindingly obvious, if the investigative media was doing its work, who was instigating, driving and funding the aforesaid. That is missed. Also missed, is the enormous lead-times required to deal with these global problems, and the point that you have to be precautionary – that it’s Russian roulette with the planet – or sooner or later, one will be a live shell. From which there will be no way back.

Don’t expect the media to tell you this.

I’ve tried – privately, not lambasting in the public arena – to get these folk to get informed. (Better mention here, that I’m a National Radio listener, an ODT reader, and I go online for the Huffpost, Age, Washington post, and so on. I don’t do television, commercial radio, or tabloids. Once, I bought the Sunday Star Times, not since the recent changes. Once, I bought the Listener – now only after a skim, and rarely).

The ODT, in my opinion, has an endemic bias, which precludes it purveying the truth. I’ve hassled the editor about it, and a few of the reporting fraternity, at various levels. Suggested where the information could be gleaned. That had an interesting response – on senior (on being pointed at a lecture I thought might fill in his gaps) said he might send a reporter……another said “no doubt, all will be revealed”  – it wasn’t, he didn’t go. Nor did I expect it.

We do get it in Op/ed’s – which is good, but the reporters drop the lot, or it is gate-kept.

I’m talking, oddly enough, about science. Fact. The real. Truth. All words I’ve used trying to get them to get researched. I’ve even offered several – recently Chris Morris – that I’m happy to bring them up to speed. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Ironically, a couple of days after I made a comment to their online issue (the third such, and the third abridged – I’ve taken to saving the sent message, anticipating this 100% inability to accept criticism – I would have no trouble with an explanation for actions, a defense of the statement, or a reasoned rebuttal) the published a good Op/ed on the subject. It’s dry, but worth the read – google ODT online, then go to ‘Opinions’, then The Science of World Affairs’ by one Daryl Copeland.

Here’s an excerpt: “At  its best, science be seen to represent the closest thing we have to universality, and perhaps even truth”.

Why he bothered with perhaps, I don’t know.

Here’s Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:   “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

Here’s the unabridged comment I sent re a recent ODT Editorial:  Continue reading

This’ll make you think – good numbers here.

I’m ducking in and out between misty showers, trying to build the glasshouse, as I try and keep the tools dry. Jaryd has just pulled into Akaroa, with tales of a wild night under storm-jib. Ish is presumably asleep on a superyacht in Rhodes. Jen is relieving-teaching today, and Zeb is still scared of the turkeys.

This, however, is a good reference on growth, area, population and numbers. I’ll keep it as a reference.

Here’s a wee taste:

First question – how many years to hit one acre per person? Not quite 140 years. By the year 2140, a planet-wide growth rate of 1.3 percent a year brings the entire human race down to only an acre of land per person.

Second question – how many years to hit one square foot per person? About 960 years. Less than ten centuries. About half the institutional age of the Catholic Church. It’s unimaginable but true. If today’s growth rate of 1.3 percent a year were sustained for another millennium, the land per person ratio would shrink to one square foot apiece.

I’m off back out to do another rivet. Hopefully.