And again...

NewScientist, 21st July 2007

(Article, "Global Shades" opening sentence.)

"Even with the best will in the world, reducing our carbon emissions is not going to prevent global warming."

Exactly right - this article brings to mind Nigel Lawson's lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies in late 2006 about which I blogged here.

Lawson summarises his lecture thus:

"Essentially, I have sought to argue three key propositions.

First, the relatively new and highly complex science of climatology is an uncertain one, and neither scientists nor politicians serve either the truth or the people by pretending to know more than they do.

Second, far and away the most rational response to such climate change as, for any reason, may occur, is to adapt to it.

And third, the rich countries of the temperate world have an obligation to assist the poor countries of the tropical world to undertake whatever adaptation may be needed."

There exists limited time, energy and money. Why are we continuing to waste (huge amounts of) these in trying to stop something that can't be, when we could be using them helping those likely to be most affected?

24-7 Ibiza Summer 2006

See what these guys do - you get a much clearer impression with a video. Brian spoke at Church, you can listen here - he's the one sunning himself.

Meritocracy? Not good enough.

If you have the ability, you should get your chance - Does this sum up the meritocratic aim? Probably. Been thinking about the Paul Potts video clip posted below and what's been troubling me is this: The guy shambles onto the stage and we all dismiss him. I mean, look at him! Stop wasting our time. He has no merit. So far. Then, he sings and now the "truth" is revealed - he can sing, really sing, he has merit, he has worth, now we love him, we really love him!! Why? Because he has given something to us. He has moved us. He is now useful to us. It's less about him, than us.

The same man walked onto the stage as walked off. Now we love him. What if he'd opened his mouth and confirmed our assumptions? Now we don't love him. Now we pity him and send him away.

You see my point? Meritocracy, forgive me, is dependent on perceived merit. Meritocracy can be brutal. What about those without perceived merit?

Jesus went to those without "merit" didn't he? Not for him a meritocracy. God's Kingdom is not like this because God is not impressed with "merit" but sees through to the heart.

God's Kingdom is about grace.

What grace would Paul Potts have been shown if he hadn't been able to sing?

Ale nomenclature

I was at the Men's (gggrrrrrrrrr...) get together at The Gate last night and had a fine time. Now that the pubs are smoke free and hence largely empty I thought I'd go along. I was kindly bought a couple of bottles of alcohol free Holsten which definitely tasted more like beer than Coke. Pretty much. Anyway, there were three of us left at the end (hardy souls) and I'm proud to say I invented a new ale. I mean, the name for a new ale. We were discussing our favourites - mine being London Pride, Flowers, HSBC erm, no hang on that's a bank, and (shh, don't tell real ale aficionados...) Directors. By the way, Courage Best at our Student bar when I first pitched up was 65p a pint!! (The Bar did go bust at some point...). But I digress. As I offered my choices I was struck at how simple the names were compared to "really proper" ales. So, imagine the quirksome pleasure of walking confidently to the bar and saying, "Hello there, a pint of Old Grumbleweedwhiskersbottom please." Does this or does this not sound just like a real ale? Yes it does. One day, who knows, you may get your chance. Any backers?