The heart of a woman

I was in this lecture at the British Library last week by Tim Lenton. Don't look for me in the picture; it is my fate: I've been everywhere but I left no witnesses. I actually wrote a review straight away but lost everything when I clicked on "publish post". It was a dense and deep shit and did not have any nerve to write again a single word. Today I can say a few things instead.

Geo engineering is, regarding its terminology, a fallacy. I mean, engineering involves something practical, a design or something, but one set of the solutions proposed to avoid global warming is not practical at all, unless you believe that fertilizing the ocean or blocking the sun rays at a planetary scale is something reasonable. Of course, you can attain something like that at a local range (and indeed much was said about deforestation), but then, why not to spend time, money and effort in neutralizing the constellations of corrupted politicians and groups of interest that operate out of the law? Pollution has less to do with Science than with Law.

People should know, in a different perspective, that the so-called Geo engineering means indeed an alteration of the climate change in a very direct and intended manner. I find this very scary. It always surprised me why, if we are concern with greenhouse gases (I doubt you can find anyone who can tell you what these gases are, apart from the infamous CO2), we are overlooking vapor of water. As far as I know, CO2 and H2O (v) emit radiation in the infrared: both has the same effect as "global warmers".

Alternative energies produce H20 (v) but, take a look at this: 3/4 parts of the planet are water. If the solar activity is experiencing some changes now (higher than average), is it not possible that a temperate increment is a cause and the increment of H2O (v) and CO2 in the troposphere an effect? I don't know, am a crazy for thinking something like this?

Tim Lenton, anyhow, stated clearly during the final questions that he does not believe we are in a run-away scenario (according to his modeling). And in addition, that the challenge comes in a local scale. I agree with both assertions. As a matter of fact, I would not expect that someone like him, being attached from his times as a PhD student at the University of East Anglia with James Lovelock in the Gaia Theory, and having spent so much time to model the Earth as a self-regulated system, could defend something different. It is surprising though that he is involved in this fairy (horror) tale of pseudo Geo engineering.

The main question, anyhow, who will pay for this new technologies and how much is, in my opinion, the key point. I don't think that charge it on to the tax payers on the grounds of being a moral issue will buy it.

**

I sneak a peek in the tube at The Evening Standard. Apparently, some people demonstrated at the Tate Modern against the involvement of BP as a sponsor of exhibitions of Art in the Tate and in the British Museum. I find it rather amusing. Don't you really think that the Tate and the British are damn happy to receive the money of BP to run their business?

Perhaps, I could expand this idea some time later... Or perhaps not.

**

However, my point today is (I received it in a flash today, just minutes ago, as I walked): For certain men, there is a moment in life when the only safe place for them is the heart of a woman.

If you are one of them and have not reach it by then, you are doomed. The heart of a woman, at certain stage, is the only place on Earth to stay warm and alive. A chilly Artic spread everywhere else, a hellish jungle, the ferocious abyss.

Oh, the heart of a woman who loves you... .

(PLEASE, LEAVE YOUR COMMENT).