The Seriousness of Career Review

Since my teenage years I’ve retained the following unshakeable certainty: that seriousness is an attitude we adopt, when we have a need to remove thought.
.
I think that other species can summon it too – for the posturing of rival males, for instance.
.
Politicians, gang leaders, career-chasers, journalists… all summon seriousness to increase the size of their posturing and to remove doubt.
.
We cannot argue with someone in a serious state, because they will have no means to find a thought in response. Only someone with a larger seriousness to their own can draw their attention.
.
There is a tragic irony, in that those we most look to for the quality of their thinking, are often most adept at subjugating thought. The worlds of art and science are almost rigid with thoughtlessness. Schools of thought draw themselves up in dignity, clear their collective throats and then also clear the decks of unruly intelligence – ready for action. Here is the school and there is the schism. Clearly anyone seeking an art, or science career must be schooled to thoughtlessness. Otherwise, they may fall into schism.
.
This has become so extreme in recent times that once-useful peer-review has mutated to the far simpler and more direct concept of career-review. Professions have become enclosed monopolies, who’s central purpose is not to profess, but to show discretion – otherwise we are seen as unprofessional. For discrete professional advice within closed walls, as with all enclosures, we must pay rent.
.
For myself, I no longer trust serious (of course thoughtless) papers on ecology, climate heating, economy, soil science… Nor do I trust a word of the string of IPCC reports – every one of which has used models, which have been wildly off the mark (optimistic) on sequestration, life cycles, photosynthesis and CO.2 emissions. Every model has been disproved by subsequent events and every model has been far too kind to the status quo of politics and power.
.
Many, wait for new, revised models to guide their practical actions. They’d do better to let the seriousness evaporate and for the whole human creature to return. We have sensual evidence, which is unavailable to the serious. We have pragmatism, intelligence, companionship, joy and grief.
.
Look at this mass of burning coal and then at this same mass of burning forest – both of which are burnt for energy. Ah look – the CO.2 released from both is more or less the same and the energy gained also.
.
IPCC consensus warms its hands and professes – The tree is renewable. The tree is good. Another tree will grow. Coal is not renewable. It is bad. IPCC pronounces timber burning to be carbon neutral, because after thirty years the tree will photosynthesis again at a similar rate. IPCC is serious!
.
Any ordinary person with sensual intelligence can see that the IPCC is talking nonsense. Yet nearly all defer, because surely IPCC must be in possession of an esoteric knowledge to which they cannot ascend?
.
The truth about biomass burning is pragmatic. It is not esoteric. Neither is IPCC judgement scientific – not remotely. It is merely serious.
.
Firstly, where has all that lack of photosynthesis gone in those thirty years – certainly not into IPCC’s ledger and certainly not into soil, into re-growth and into the species dependant on that tree.
.
Now, let’s burn the coal, but not the tree – allowing it to grow leaves, shed leaves, increase in both soil and plant biomass and photosynthesis. Which is the better, burning coal, or burning trees? The answer is plain.
.
We must stop burning coal, but burning trees is far, far worse. Biomass burning removes life from the soil (sequestration), oxygen from the air and removes future photosynthetic “carbon draw-down” effects. It follows that had we time for a planned transition towards atmospheric balance, then first we’d stop burning life, then second, we’d stop burning fossilised life.
.
Of course, time for that planned transition has passed, we have no more time and all must be instant.
.
Biomass burning from land which has not changed its use – arable -oil-seeds, sugar cane, wheat, maize… and from existing forests is accounted zero carbon in all IPCC reports. It is also accounted as “carbon negative” in targeted futures (2030/50) by the use of yet untried “carbon capture and storage”.
.
How on Earth did the scientific consensus come to believe (I think belief is appropriate) in nonsense? It can only be because it is serious and serious about protecting a doctrine – a doctrine which is tied to careers and to peer-reviews/career-reviews in their thousands. Don’t forget that climate-related “scientists” will wildly jet from global conference to global conference in serious defence of their careers – fully aware of the harm they do, yet also in the certainty that the integrity of professional and discrete status must always come first. The august must not be embarrassed. *
.
***
.
Authors note – As a humble farmer, my thoughts have been refused by reputable organisations such as resilience.org , who ask for my “sources”. That they are my own would seem to protect anyone else from ridicule, but nevertheless, it seems, I remain without appropriate peers.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s