More On Hopenhagen; Consensus Shmonsensus; L'il Tigger Woods' Fall From Something

I can't figure out how people can stand up and call the bank industry and scam but accept the massive transfer of wealth aimed at by climate robber barons? I just wished I could get me a piece of that sca...action.

Anyway. This is getting crazy. Copenhagen crazy! 

I want to see PM Harper - that climate "criminal" - go Trudeau on everyone and take a hard stand. Heck, blast the whole thing and let the Limo lovers know the people are watching them. Heck again, go off on a long Chavezesque rant or Shakespearean soliloquy.

All is not lost. The Weather Meteoroligcal Organization published this interesting article:

The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 (January–October) is currently estimated at 0.44°C ± 0.11°C (0.79°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year.

The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment.

So. When does Moonbiot blame Harper for this? I personally think it's Bush's fault.  


***

About the word "consensus." I never really cared for it. Consensus is one broad, elusive and evasive term to apply to something like climate change.

All I know is that sometimes, not always, sometimes, when there are six people in agreement and one dissents, the six aren't necessarily right. Now we're getting into the whole tyranny of the majority and black sheep thing.

Did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton need "consensus" to prove their point? No. They let the science do the talking.

***

It's ironic about Tiger Woods. You know, about how careful he was politically but not socially or morally. L'il Tigger - grrrroowwll - went kaput on the latter two.

My gal, a chick with a high IQ, always asks about celebrity couples that fall from superficial grace, "But they looked so happy together!" When it comes to manufacturing an image, smart people can be had.

We don't know squat about what goes on behind closed doors and we shouldn't want to know. Fuck celebrities. It's a simple thought really.

Tiger Woods could have fucked 50 girls and I wouldn't care. Unless one of those girls was my wife. Then I'd be angling for hush money. Ahem.

What we have here, Watson, is an image problem. Whenever you carefully craft and manufacture an image - in his case, a good family guy - you set yourself into a minefield. Kobe Bryant, to cite an example I've heard used as a comparison, wasn't in the same league as Woods in terms of image. Bryant was a bad boy and was never cast as a family guy. He isn't even well liked. So it's not surprising he was able to overcome his own sexual indiscretions. It was par for the course - excuse the pun. Woods is a trickier case. His need to add to his foursome was surprising to his fans and the public at large.

I remember when Woods' father once said he wanted his son to be like Mandela and Gandhi. It was a remarkable thing to do; comparing a fricken golfer - golfer! - to those men!

Charlie Sheen, for his part, doesn't pretend - until he finds a hobby or cause to campaign for at which point he'll annoy us all about his new found reason to live.