Leaderboard

Oz, you just have to take a look at this Wendel Cruze comic strip. (Wendel was a 70's era gay preacher's boy from Alabama who bailed to the big city.) This particular episode reads like the creator knew you personally back in the day. http://www.howardcruse.com/howardsite/aboutbooks/wendelbook/wendel/wendel1/index.html Or maybe he's just imagining the same fresh from the farm picture of you I've constructed in my own mind.

From 2008 but someone just pointed me to it now. James Lovelock: 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan' The climate science maverick believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam. So what would he do? Decca Aitkenhead The Guardian, Friday 29 February 2008 James Lovelock. Photograph: Eamonn McCabe In 1965 executives at Shell wanted to know what the world would look like in the year 2000. They consulted a range of experts, who speculated about fusion-powered hovercrafts and "all sorts of fanciful technological stuff". When the oil company asked the scientist James Lovelock, he predicted that the main problem in 2000 would be the environment. "It will be worsening then to such an extent that it will seriously affect their business," he said. "And of course," Lovelock says, with a smile 43 years later, "that's almost exactly what's happened." Lovelock has been dispensing predictions from his one-man laboratory in an old mill in Cornwall since the mid-1960s, the consistent accuracy of which have earned him a reputation as one of Britain's most respected - if maverick - independent scientists. Working alone since the age of 40, he invented a device that detected CFCs, which helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer, and introduced the Gaia hypothesis, a revolutionary theory that the Earth is a self-regulating super-organism. Initially ridiculed by many scientists as new age nonsense, today that theory forms the basis of almost all climate science. For decades, his advocacy of nuclear power appalled fellow environmentalists - but recently increasing numbers of them have come around to his way of thinking. His latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of Europe will be Saharan; and parts of London will be underwater. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report deploys less dramatic language - but its calculations aren't a million miles away from his. As with most people, my panic about climate change is equalled only by my confusion over what I ought to do about it. A meeting with Lovelock therefore feels a little like an audience with a prophet. Buried down a winding track through wild woodland, in an office full of books and papers and contraptions involving dials and wires, the 88-year-old presents his thoughts with a quiet, unshakable conviction that can be unnerving. More alarming even than his apocalyptic climate predictions is his utter certainty that almost everything we're trying to do about it is wrong. On the day we meet, the Daily Mail has launched a campaign to rid Britain of plastic shopping bags. The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on - all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable. "It's just too late for it," he says. "Perhaps if we'd gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don't have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. I get an awful lot of people coming to me saying you can't say that, because it gives us nothing to do. I say on the contrary, it gives us an immense amount to do. Just not the kinds of things you want to do." He dismisses eco ideas briskly, one by one. "Carbon offsetting? I wouldn't dream of it. It's just a joke. To pay money to plant trees, to think you're offsetting the carbon? You're probably making matters worse. You're far better off giving to the charity Cool Earth, which gives the money to the native peoples to not take down their forests." Do he and his wife try to limit the number of flights they take? "No we don't. Because we can't." And recycling, he adds, is "almost certainly a waste of time and energy", while having a "green lifestyle" amounts to little more than "ostentatious grand gestures". He distrusts the notion of ethical consumption. "Because always, in the end, it turns out to be a scam ... or if it wasn't one in the beginning, it becomes one." Somewhat unexpectedly, Lovelock concedes that the Mail's plastic bag campaign seems, "on the face of it, a good thing". But it transpires that this is largely a tactical response; he regards it as merely more rearrangement of Titanic deckchairs, "but I've learnt there's no point in causing a quarrel over everything". He saves his thunder for what he considers the emptiest false promise of all - renewable energy. "You're never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours," he says. "Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time." This is all delivered with an air of benign wonder at the intractable stupidity of people. "I see it with everybody. People just want to go on doing what they're doing. They want business as usual. They say, 'Oh yes, there's going to be a problem up ahead,' but they don't want to change anything." Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more. Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem - the bigger challenge will be food. "Maybe they'll synthesise food. I don't know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco's, in the form of Quorn. It's not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it." But he fears we won't invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects "about 80%" of the world's population to be wiped out by 2100. Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says. "But this is the real thing." Faced with two versions of the future - Kyoto's preventative action and Lovelock's apocalypse - who are we to believe? Some critics have suggested Lovelock's readiness to concede the fight against climate change owes more to old age than science: "People who say that about me haven't reached my age," he says laughing. But when I ask if he attributes the conflicting predictions to differences in scientific understanding or personality, he says: "Personality." There's more than a hint of the controversialist in his work, and it seems an unlikely coincidence that Lovelock became convinced of the irreversibility of climate change in 2004, at the very point when the international consensus was coming round to the need for urgent action. Aren't his theories at least partly driven by a fondness for heresy? "Not a bit! Not a bit! All I want is a quiet life! But I can't help noticing when things happen, when you go out and find something. People don't like it because it upsets their ideas." But the suspicion seems confirmed when I ask if he's found it rewarding to see many of his climate change warnings endorsed by the IPCC. "Oh no! In fact, I'm writing another book now, I'm about a third of the way into it, to try and take the next steps ahead." Interviewers often remark upon the discrepancy between Lovelock's predictions of doom, and his good humour. "Well I'm cheerful!" he says, smiling. "I'm an optimist. It's going to happen." Humanity is in a period exactly like 1938-9, he explains, when "we all knew something terrible was going to happen, but didn't know what to do about it". But once the second world war was under way, "everyone got excited, they loved the things they could do, it was one long holiday ... so when I think of the impending crisis now, I think in those terms. A sense of purpose - that's what people want." At moments I wonder about Lovelock's credentials as a prophet. Sometimes he seems less clear-eyed with scientific vision than disposed to see the version of the future his prejudices are looking for. A socialist as a young man, he now favours market forces, and it's not clear whether his politics are the child or the father of his science. His hostility to renewable energy, for example, gets expressed in strikingly Eurosceptic terms of irritation with subsidies and bureaucrats. But then, when he talks about the Earth - or Gaia - it is in the purest scientific terms all. "There have been seven disasters since humans came on the earth, very similar to the one that's just about to happen. I think these events keep separating the wheat from the chaff. And eventually we'll have a human on the planet that really does understand it and can live with it properly. That's the source of my optimism." What would Lovelock do now, I ask, if he were me? He smiles and says: "Enjoy life while you can. Because if you're lucky it's going to be 20 years before it hits the fan." http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

I did and I'll never forget it. It roared and the ground shook and low frequency compression (sound) waves too long to hear pounded my body and I was ten miles away across water and marshes.

Too messy. She should take the watch for repair. Did her shoes get dirty? Where is my Prince? I hope my Prince wasn't in the audience but I will wait for him if he was there.* *Saving Hito from having to post a response.

Thanks for posting this, Tomcal, it brightened up my whole afternoon.

But I'm working on it, I really am.

Read this or some piece based on it a while back. I've felt that way about Greens for a long time now. Way too much smugness and feel-goodery and just plain silliness. Lovelock is just stating the obvious when it comes to tree huggers. How can one take anybody seriously who preaches climate doomsday and then fights nuclear power plants to the death?

Careful it doesn't get stuck that way!

You remind me of my 85 year old grandmother who referred to "those old ladies" at church. There is perhaps a lot to be said for "blanking out old memories". Best regards, RA1

If that were the only criterion then George Bush would be first. No other President as done as much to fight HIV/AIDS.

Sounds like a trip to FTL is on the horizon. I love sex in high humidity.

As I reflect on this in my later years I have decided that of this group LBJ belongs second from the top. Shocking I know, for me too. Kennedy, hated widely in the South and West and doubtful for reelection as I recall it, goes at the top for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. His leadership and actions saved us and the world from a terrible destruction that would be felt for a century if not centuries and very well could have ended the Union as we know it. LBJ deserves second place by a mile. A flawed man and President, he nevertheless was the second most consequential domestic policy president behind Roosevelt. He personally, through the force of sheer will, moved the most important social legislation of our time: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - outlawing most forms of racial segregation The Voting Rights Act of 1965 - outlawing discrimination in voting The Civil Rights Act of 1968 - which provided for equal housing opportunities regardless of race, creed, or national origin Medicare Medicaid The War on Poverty - Head Start, Food Stamps & Work Study The Higher Education Act of 1965 - funding for lower income students and much much more. It can be argued that most of these things would happen eventually, as of course the end of slavery did some 90 years after the founding of the country and The Civil War. There is no reasonable argument that under one President so much wide-ranging precedent-shattering social changes could have or would have taken place, even by the end of the 20th Century as witnessed by the Affordable Health Care struggle. It took the confluence of the transference of sympathy for an assassinated Kennedy through a landslide election, a President with intimate knowledge of the Congress and how to work his will with that Congress, a ruthless politician, one willing to forsake his cultural heritage and home community to move the entire country to a more socially egalitarian standing. Could anyone else have done that at that time or any other time? I'm sure the answer is no. Some view his record as a zero sum game. The Viet Nam War detracts from his record which diminishes his contributions below that of lesser accomplished presidents. I'm sorry but that doesn't wash. All one has to do to is to compare state of the nation if that President had not held office. Based on that Kennedy is the sure winner for the reason stated and LBJ is an exalted second for the same reason. Yes, Viet Nam was a mistake, one he was persistently committed to. It might never have continued if he had not been elected President. Doubtful though as George McGovern and Gene McCarthy could attest to. I put Reagan at third. He was a mixed bag with significant failures but deserves third for two reasons. He broke the back of the Soviet Union by spending them into oblivion. I firmly believe this. This alone secures hims a solid third. Second he broke the back of stagflation with the runaway inflation and interest rates of the late 70's. Those were miserable times with grocery store can goods carrying six or seven layers of price tags stuck on each other reflecting rampant inflation on weekly and often daily basis. Mortgage interest rates of 17% - 19%. Again, the test is simple. How would the country have faired if he had not been the President. On these two counts very much poorer. For those too young to remember The Cold War and the toll it took on our resources, attentions and lives, brush up on that history. Korea and Viet Nam were Cold War proxies to name just two. Moving to the bottom: The Worst: George Bush. IRAQ and Katrina just two of a long list. Again, how would the country have faired had he never been President. For the very very very much better IMO. Second Worst: Jimmy Carter, ineffective. Iran, Middle East Oil Crisis, Stagflation come to mind immediately. A Special Case: Nixon. I'm undecided exactly where to place Nixon. Aside from his paranoia and bigotry he was a very effective President -- the tall pole in the tent being the Opening to China. He was very good in foreign policy excepting Viet Nam and not too bad in domestic policy as exemplified by offering a GOP plan for Universal Health Care which Ted Kennedy turned down and regretted for the next 40 years. Certainly he would be viewed by his party as a RHINO today. Watergate was a dark blot on the man and his view of Presidential power, yet I'm not sure we aren't better off for him having held office. For those who view Viet Nam as the alpha and omega of concerns I'm sure they disagree. As for the others, they all have secure places in the middle of the pack. That is not a bad thing.

Dunt nose nutin about birthin babees mz scarlett and fo shu asz noz nuttin bowt slaves massah, but Cate don gum win in two weeks. Please don't flame me. Trying to be a bit funny and reference Miss Butterfly McQueen and my feelings that 12 Years A Slave probably will win for Best Film. But anyone who thinks that the Oscar will go to anyone but Lady Cate is sorely mistaken. The manner in which she reveals some of the internal emotions of her character is incredible. Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren, let alone Sandra Bullock need to speed on down to Aussieland for some acting refresher courses. The three of them phoned it in for Iron Lady, The Queen and The Blind Side in comparison.

Somehow this didn't help all that much:

I do try to keep up with the times, to be open to new ways of thinking about things (got to be able to talk with twinks if I want to get any) but sometimes these modern times can get a little hard to wrap my head around: Not just clueless straight people. Maybe the occasional old gay guy too. ==== It occurs to me that AS probably has all this category blending down pat.

I hated the show. A paragon of contrived stupidity, incompetence and never ending frustrations. On the cleverness scale it completely failed to register. Ordinarily this genre is my kind of meat. I tried to watch several episodes spanning a couple of months. For the above reasons I couldn't take it. It got boring and frustrating predicting, without fail, how the episode would let the bad guys get away. I'm ok with the the guys getting away, that's how the show moves through the season. It was just the lack or creativity in how that was crafted. One would think the main character would get smarter about tracking and apprehending his target as the failures accumulate through the season. One of my brother's favorite shows he sent me a complete season on DVD for Xmas one year. The package remains shrink wrapped on my DVD shelf.

Torchwood for me..love that show

I wore a light white cotton robe....

http://teamcoco.com/video/joe-biden-president-ad

Has anyone else picked up on the Goldbergs? If not, am I insane for laughing out loud for every episode?