INTEGRAL ANTI-CAPITALISM cont'd.

[Layman Pascal]

For an introduction to this expanding meta-thread see Integral Anti-Capitalism pt I. We continue here because we have, hilariously, exceeded this website's capacity...

LAYMAN PASCAL

I agree that holacracy should be singled out for special investigation. The provocative notion that we are dramatically over-emphasizing the need for "conscious leadership" pertains very pertinently to this discussion. Robertson, like ourselves, is pointing to the fact that business (organizations) which integrally improve the interiors and cultural
spirit of their participants are still predisposed to certain outcomes as a result of their actual structural habits of communication and their specific decision-making protocols.
His notion of a constantly self-correcting dynamic organization drawing upon the capacity of individuals to act as tension-sensors relative to the "evolutionary purpose" of the organization is compelling and admirable.

More important is simply that he is making a stand and making an attempt to construct a protocol (constitution). I am not fully versed in the 4.0 version of the holacracy constitution but we should get deeper into some of these proposals.  

Given the level of your current knowledge of their protocols, what would you want to change or add in order to ethically and functionally empower this approach even more?

THEURJ

First some housekeeping in providing links in part I to comments on holacracy: their website, comment 1, comment 2, comment 3 (and 3 more on p. 7), and the first 7 comments on p. 8. 

I’m not yet familiar enough with holacracy to know it might need. So for now I’ll ask questions.  From p. 8 there was a blog post on ownership and the model might (but not necessarily) include outside capital investors. I asked:

“One question immediately pops up on outside investors. Are there limits on the amount of outside capital investment? What if their investment is such that without it the company could not financially survive? And/or depends on it for start-up? Then such investment would control the company, like it or not. If you don't do what I say I'm taking my ball and going home. No ball, no ballgame. Not the same as a mortgage or loan company.”

Granted why such investors are included on the Board there are other stake-holders to balance their input. But are there rules about which outside individuals or companies can invest? Do they have to have similar values like triple bottom lines instead of just profit for their investors? Can a Goldman Sachs provide start-up capital? Or Romeny’s ex-firm, Bain? Just wondering, so perhaps it’s time for those out there more familiar with the system to engage us?

LAYMAN PASCAL

I appreciate your inquiry about the potential influence of outside investors in holacratic systems. Perhaps they have a good protocol for that. Or perhaps not. In general, all "smart groups" need to comprehend and anticipate the distortion influence that donors and enablers wield. The psychology of human nature shows that we may believe ourselves to be quite sturdy and impartial while we are really bending in the breeze.

One of the concerns I had while perusing the holacracy constitution was about the voting procedure for filling roles. There are many parts of their approach which impress. In particular I would like to make not of the necessity to place constraints upon discussion. When the mention of a concern is met with the mention of counter-concerns then the intelligence and practical efficacy of discussions drops dramatically. A highly suspicious mind might even supposed that the human hive is encouraged to engage in the constant casual usage of dysfunctional conversation. So their use of controlled phases in both operational and hiring decisions is admirable. However, their actual voting protocol seems (to my naive glance) to be based on a model of transparent majority. A sophisticated "show of hands".

So this may be an area in which holacratic principles can be expanded to include a more thorough use of "secret ballot" and "averaged ranking".

The former often seems like a show of bad faith and an invitation to covert dangers... but these are considerably outweighed by the liberation of individual intelligence from any conscious or unconscious concerns about the social consequences of their input.

The latter evades a primitive "first past the post" approach in which our intelligence is functionally limited to a yes/no determination about each candidate relative to other candidates.

Another thing I admire about holacracy is that it represents a functional procedure and culture in which participants would appear to become better participants by participating. Their capacity and ethical commitment to the good of the organization through its evolving protocols should be an increasing trend. Any smart group needs to be arranged so that even people who try to distort the results will find their capacity and will to do this reducing over time. Replaced by the inspirational efficacy of the group.

This brings me to another issue relative to voting, both in political and economic groups. That is the relative absence of specific instructions about how to translated ones feelings into a vote-mark. This is almost completely unaddressed in terms of popular elections. To discuss it even seems insidious to some people who fear coercion (and/or wish to maintain the current material power structures).

Protocols should have at least a clear suggestion about how to locate both "gut" and "intellectual" data within ourselves and convert that into a numerical value which can be contributed to a group decision. A lack of clarification at this critical junction may act as an invisible source of drag upon an otherwise very functional group organism.

It might even be possible to define an "integral-level organizational set up" for business or politics by simply compiling a list of areas in which intelligence and capacity are distorted. We might recall that most of Wilber's philosophy has emerged in levels correlated to his discovery of "fallacies" or "basic errors". Integral proposals about business and society could be all over the map unless there is a reasonable set of constraints that make sure they fall in the most lucrative zone.

So other than the potential influence of outside "helpers" and "donors" what other sources of distortion or inhibition do you see going mostly unaddressed in otherwise progressive groups?

THEURJ

My next question of holacracy is who came up with it? It seems to be the pet project of Brian Robertson, his own brainchild. I'm wondering if that is so of if it was a community or P2P project? I mean, the structure of holacracy itself calls for distributed decision-making but was the creation of holacracy itself derived from this process or mostly dictated by Robertson? I've yet to find an answer at the site so I posed this question to them via contact info. I'll provide the response if/when received. I think the answer is pivotal in determining if this thing called holacracy arose from its own medicine.

LAYMAN PASCAL

I look forward that answer if it is forthcoming. The notion of self-arising systems is something which haunts the periphery of these discussions. My fantasy is that we can devise a group protocol which so reliably and simply exceeds the cognitive capacity of the individual participants that it would be foolish to predetermine the purpose and nature of the group. Collectively we could a better job of determining what kind of a collective we should be. "Smartgroups" of this kind could then spread through the world in a very radical social uprising. How possible that is remains uncertain...

As I understand holacracy, the different companies making use of it are assumed to engage in their own mutational modifications of the "constitution". So even if Brian wrote the whole thing out in his bathtub it still retains an open source quality. The answer to whether its current forms are or are not the result of distributed decision-making is almost certainly: sort of.

One of the reasons the holacracy approach is so amenable to business organization is that it seems to depend upon the functional axis of a specified purpose. The aim is somewhat pregiven -- our job is to sell widgets or maximize share-holder profit, etc. His use of the metaphor of the sensors on an airplane derives from a mechanism that is assumed to be designed for a well-known purpose.

My question would be whether or not this "aim" is a necessarily functional element in generating enhanced organizational capacity? Or whether it is simply an artifact of the need to make these systems serve a relatively conventional marketplace task?

THEURJ

Your suggestion of a smart group that arises creatively from a continually evolving set of parameters seems to be the intent and practice of holacracy. As to the organizational purpose of Holacracy One, it seems to have multiple bottom lines including but not limited to profit. For example, see this post in the comments where I noted that the top to bottom pay ratio is 3 to 1, and quoted some of those multiple purposes:

"With Holacracy at play, the game is entirely different: with the decentralization of authority, the separation of people and role, and the dynamic evolution of those roles, we end up with a situation that looks more like free agents going about their work with no central planning. There might not even be a single person who knows about everything you do."

This sounds much more like the sort of emerging P2P organizational structure discussed throughout this thread. And also of significance in the post following this article where The Integral Center of Boulder has "voluntarily relinquished their rights to control their company as owners. Instead, they have ceded authority to a purpose-centered governance process called Holacracy, a model that distributes authority across the organization and gives primary power to the organization itself."

These are indeed advances over the kind of conscious capitalism promoted and AQALly packaged for sale at I-I.

LAYMAN PASCAL

(comment pending)

This is an interesting moment. Apparently Amazon.com is experimenting with a version of holacracy as well. It clearly represents a theoretical advance over the typical kind of conscious capitalism which combines advanced sentiments with a potentially dangerous and uninspected ideological allegiance to more primitive routines of social organization and wealth production. Yet we cannot know the results of the experiment in advance.

I have tremendous optimism about emergent p2p organizational structures. Experimentation is utterly necessary and should be strongly encouraged. I am also very hopeful that advances can be made in terms of quantification. This is very central in my thinking lately.

It seems that experimental protocols for advances social organization systems suffer from the lack of a quantifiable evaluation of their respective degrees of "collective intelligence". Most people are drawn to such possibilities by ethical and aesthetic criteria which do no necessarily persuade the world. So I would love to see experimentation supplemented by the attempt to devise a metric for estimating the intelligence of a social organization protocol.

Along similar lines, my "tetrabucks" type notions represent the possibility/necessity to structure our currency at a level that correlates to advanced P2P organizational structures and post-pluralistic consciousness.

The potential of an evil holacracy has hardly been broached. If it works -- it works. Other than simply the tendency of less complex people not to use more complex systems, and the tendency of more complex systems to complexify their participants, there needs to be some inter-organizational structures which incline all organizations int he direction of broad human well-being. It is my assertion that as long as primary areas of value remain outside monetization the actions of groups trying to utilize official social credits will constantly become unstable.

So I am imagining a line leading from pathological capitalism to standard capitalism to conscious capitalism to trans-capitalist network organizations to such organizations bound together by a integrated set of metrics for determining the intelligence of groups and splicing together (at least) four broad domains of human value.

Along these lines -- how will we decide whether holacratic integral business is working better?

THEURJ

As to how we determine whether alternative economic paradigms are 'working,' I'd suggest that even by the standards of typical business democratic workplaces like co-ops are successful. If by that we mean the organization runs smoothly, has low employee turnover, high employee satisfaction, makes a profit or surplus over operating costs, and other such typical measures. Plus they fulfill their stated purposes as expressed in theRochdale principles, like community education, cooperation, democratic control, etc.

I'd say the same applies to holacracy. They also have to accomplish the usual business parameters like above but also meet stated principles like in their constitution. Given Robertson's business acumen I'm sure at the site he has precise and measurable indices to track such progress, though I didn't try to find them as yet.

LAYMAN PASCAL

(comment pending)

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

and here is my hopefully last word on this issue

this interview in german : ) but maybe you find it or a similar one in english

its with patrick moore, the founder of green peace ,

who has left green peace, his own org.

some time ago

and here he explains in clear terms  WHY :

http://www.novo-argumente.com/magazin.php/novo_notizen/artikel/0001571

i am searching for a similar statement /interview form one of the british green movement founders

who recently declared that the savest green energy on this planet is nowadays nuclear energy and that he was totally wrong ! and he distanced himself in  no uncertain terms from the entire green movement as it presents itself nowadays.

of course he is being  witchhunted now by the daft greenies .......like any decent religion based on desert monotheism , even if its a long time past link, is wont to do. as their elders so their offspring. seems they just never grow up.

and i search for that research paper of that journalist , because it aint as easy brushed of as you obviously seem to  think, theurj,

and no i am not a republican ! and never was either. and i sometimes watch fox for the simple reason

that the opinion of fox is banned in germany ! and i wonder why is that necessary and what that has to do with aufklärung and free speech , which by the way across europe is disappearing at a very fast rate.

but i do also watch cnn so...my favourite american comdian is bill maher nut my favourrite british is pat condell , so.......

you can put me in any box you like ,,its always going to be just ...your box !

mm

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

max miller said:

and here is my hopefully last word on this issue

this interview in german : ) but maybe you find it or a similar one in english

its with patrick moore, the founder of green peace ,

who has left green peace, his own org.

some time ago

and here he explains in clear terms  WHY :

http://www.novo-argumente.com/magazin.php/novo_notizen/artikel/0001571

i am searching for a similar statement /interview form one of the british green movement founders

who recently declared that the savest green energy on this planet is nowadays nuclear energy and that he was totally wrong ! and he distanced himself in  no uncertain terms from the entire green movement as it presents itself nowadays.

of course he is being  witchhunted now by the daft greenies .......like any decent religion based on desert monotheism , even if its a long time past link, is wont to do. as their elders so their offspring. seems they just never grow up.

and i search for that research paper of that journalist , because it aint as easy brushed of as you obviously seem to  think, theurj,

and no i am not a republican ! and never was either. and i sometimes watch fox for the simple reason

that the opinion of fox is banned in germany ! and i wonder why is that necessary and what that has to do with aufklärung and free speech , which by the way across europe is disappearing at a very fast rate.

but i do also watch cnn so...my favourite american comdian is bill maher nut my favourrite british is pat condell , so.......

you can put me in any box you like ,,its always going to be just ...your box !

mm

p.s.

here is some taste of whats to come

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/category/ipcc/

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

max miller said:

max miller said:

and here is my hopefully last word on this issue

this interview in german : ) but maybe you find it or a similar one in english

its with patrick moore, the founder of green peace ,

who has left green peace, his own org.

some time ago

and here he explains in clear terms  WHY :

http://www.novo-argumente.com/magazin.php/novo_notizen/artikel/0001571

i am searching for a similar statement /interview form one of the british green movement founders

who recently declared that the savest green energy on this planet is nowadays nuclear energy and that he was totally wrong ! and he distanced himself in  no uncertain terms from the entire green movement as it presents itself nowadays.

of course he is being  witchhunted now by the daft greenies .......like any decent religion based on desert monotheism , even if its a long time past link, is wont to do. as their elders so their offspring. seems they just never grow up.

and i search for that research paper of that journalist , because it aint as easy brushed of as you obviously seem to  think, theurj,

and no i am not a republican ! and never was either. and i sometimes watch fox for the simple reason

that the opinion of fox is banned in germany ! and i wonder why is that necessary and what that has to do with aufklärung and free speech , which by the way across europe is disappearing at a very fast rate.

but i do also watch cnn so...my favourite american comdian is bill maher nut my favourrite british is pat condell , so.......

you can put me in any box you like ,,its always going to be just ...your box !

mm

p.s.

here is some taste of whats to come

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/category/ipcc/

pps hey i found her

her name is donna laframboise and she write this book here:

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert

you can get it here :

ww.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref%3Dsr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318623567&sr=8-1#reader_B005UEVB8Q

so take that and then we talk mr. theurjii

mm

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

max miller said:

max miller said:

max miller said:

and here is my hopefully last word on this issue

this interview in german : ) but maybe you find it or a similar one in english

its with patrick moore, the founder of green peace ,

who has left green peace, his own org.

some time ago

and here he explains in clear terms  WHY :

http://www.novo-argumente.com/magazin.php/novo_notizen/artikel/0001571

i am searching for a similar statement /interview form one of the british green movement founders

who recently declared that the savest green energy on this planet is nowadays nuclear energy and that he was totally wrong ! and he distanced himself in  no uncertain terms from the entire green movement as it presents itself nowadays.

of course he is being  witchhunted now by the daft greenies .......like any decent religion based on desert monotheism , even if its a long time past link, is wont to do. as their elders so their offspring. seems they just never grow up.

and i search for that research paper of that journalist , because it aint as easy brushed of as you obviously seem to  think, theurj,

and no i am not a republican ! and never was either. and i sometimes watch fox for the simple reason

that the opinion of fox is banned in germany ! and i wonder why is that necessary and what that has to do with aufklärung and free speech , which by the way across europe is disappearing at a very fast rate.

but i do also watch cnn so...my favourite american comdian is bill maher nut my favourrite british is pat condell , so.......

you can put me in any box you like ,,its always going to be just ...your box !

mm

p.s.

here is some taste of whats to come

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/category/ipcc/

pps hey i found her

her name is donna laframboise and she write this book here:

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert

you can get it here :

ww.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref%3Dsr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318623567&sr=8-1#reader_B005UEVB8Q

so take that and then we talk mr. theurjii

mm

ppps

here is a review :I have read Donna Laframboise's "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert". It has a cleverly provocative title that some true believers in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) could consider sacrilegious. The book is however not an argument against CAGW as such. It is neither an academic treatise nor a polemic, but an investigative report into the operations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)... an investigation that uncovers a sleazy underbelly to a powerful and prestigious organisation before which much of the world's media, opinion makers and political leaders genuflect.

Laframboise brings a reporter's eyes and nose to the IPCC. The book is an easy and fast read but Laframboise's breezy writing belies the extensive research and explosive details contained therein. It's revelations and allegations are disturbing - and are supported by extensive footnotes and links that build a persuasive case that the IPCC is, in fact, a law unto itself - a hotbed of cronyism, shoddy science in the service of political activism, and politically-correct hand wringing. If she is even half correct, the IPCC has a serious case to answer. Read it for yourself, follow her links, examine her footnotes and then give your critique or rebuttal. Until then hold your tongue... and your typing fingers."

get my drift now better ??

mm

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

max miller said:

max miller said:

max miller said:

max miller said:

and here is my hopefully last word on this issue

this interview in german : ) but maybe you find it or a similar one in english

its with patrick moore, the founder of green peace ,

who has left green peace, his own org.

some time ago

and here he explains in clear terms  WHY :

http://www.novo-argumente.com/magazin.php/novo_notizen/artikel/0001571

i am searching for a similar statement /interview form one of the british green movement founders

who recently declared that the savest green energy on this planet is nowadays nuclear energy and that he was totally wrong ! and he distanced himself in  no uncertain terms from the entire green movement as it presents itself nowadays.

of course he is being  witchhunted now by the daft greenies .......like any decent religion based on desert monotheism , even if its a long time past link, is wont to do. as their elders so their offspring. seems they just never grow up.

and i search for that research paper of that journalist , because it aint as easy brushed of as you obviously seem to  think, theurj,

and no i am not a republican ! and never was either. and i sometimes watch fox for the simple reason

that the opinion of fox is banned in germany ! and i wonder why is that necessary and what that has to do with aufklärung and free speech , which by the way across europe is disappearing at a very fast rate.

but i do also watch cnn so...my favourite american comdian is bill maher nut my favourrite british is pat condell , so.......

you can put me in any box you like ,,its always going to be just ...your box !

mm

p.s.

here is some taste of whats to come

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/category/ipcc/

pps hey i found her

her name is donna laframboise and she write this book here:

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert

you can get it here :

ww.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref%3Dsr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318623567&sr=8-1#reader_B005UEVB8Q

so take that and then we talk mr. theurjii

mm

ppps

here is a review :I have read Donna Laframboise's "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert". It has a cleverly provocative title that some true believers in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) could consider sacrilegious. The book is however not an argument against CAGW as such. It is neither an academic treatise nor a polemic, but an investigative report into the operations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)... an investigation that uncovers a sleazy underbelly to a powerful and prestigious organisation before which much of the world's media, opinion makers and political leaders genuflect.

Laframboise brings a reporter's eyes and nose to the IPCC. The book is an easy and fast read but Laframboise's breezy writing belies the extensive research and explosive details contained therein. It's revelations and allegations are disturbing - and are supported by extensive footnotes and links that build a persuasive case that the IPCC is, in fact, a law unto itself - a hotbed of cronyism, shoddy science in the service of political activism, and politically-correct hand wringing. If she is even half correct, the IPCC has a serious case to answer. Read it for yourself, follow her links, examine her footnotes and then give your critique or rebuttal. Until then hold your tongue... and your typing fingers."

get my drift now better ??

and another one :"In The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert, Donna Laframboise blows the lid off the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Instead of being a neutral body evaluating whether there has, in fact, been unprecedented global warming, the IPCC started with the premise that global warming was increasing at an alarming rate. Instead of investigating whether this warming was due to natural temperature cycles related to natural phenomena, human induced production of a trace atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide, was the cause celebre from the beginning. Instead of convening the world's experts, Laframboise exposes many of the IPCC "scientists" as being young, un-degreed, sometimes unpublished fledglings! She shows abundant examples of true world experts, purposely avoided by the UN IPCC, because they disagreed with the anthropogenic global warming party line.
Surprisingly, instead of gathering scientists with no preconceived notions of climate change, Donna Laframbroise lays bare the high percentage of IPCC scientist who had been closely associated with and many times employed by the powerful and monied environmental activist groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, The Environmental Defense Fund, and others. Thus, these IPCC staff were following an agenda. They were "more activist than scientist!" She exposes The IPCC as a shoddy organization who didn't even follow what few rules it had, but portrayed itself as the indisputable oracle of impending climate disaster backed by the consensus of "thousands" of the world's most best scientists!
The Delinquent Teenager... is a fascinating unraveling of the world's most powerful voice for redistributing trillions of dollars in the name of the unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming, a theory rapidly losing many of its early proponents.
If Donna Laframbroise hasn't put the final nail in the coffin of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I'll be surprised!"

see how backward you are theurj , in your californian hot tub , probabaly you should bath a little less HOT in the future, you have been had!!

mm

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

and then of course you might want to deepen your knowledge with

Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize

her newer book and the dustbin is exactly the place where intelligent people throw all

IPCC reports !

here a review :

Review: Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report and the Nobel Peace Prize.
Donna Laframboise. Ivy Avenue Press, Port Dover, Canada. 123pp.

Journalist/blogger Donna Laframboise's first climate book was The Delinquent Teenager, exposing in late 2011 the multiple flaws in the structure, personnel and processes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC).
She has now followed through with Into the Dustbin, a compendium of about 80 of her essays over the past few years, chipping away at the IPCC's and its people's credibility.
The book has two themes: the stained integrity of IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri and the rush by IPCC scholars to drape themselves in wholly fictitious personal glory as "Nobel Prize" science winners. In fact, the IPCC and not its members won half of a "Nobel Peace Prize" in 2007 merely for raising awareness of climate change and its purported remedies.
While much of the material originated as her blog posts, the essays are now tidied and parceled up in a reader-friendly way.

She shows how Dr Pachauri has made an art form of mis-describing the IPCC as an objective, science-based, policy-neutral institution. Laframboise ruthlessly catalogues examples of the IPCC's activist bent and ethical and professional, shortcomings.
Pachauri, who pays lip service to scientific debate, described the IPCC's skeptical critics (Financial Times, February 3, 2010):
"They are the same people who deny the link between smoking and cancer. They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder - and I hope that they put it on their faces every day."
He also recommended in late 2011 that skeptics be sent with a one-way ticket on Richard Branson's space ship, "though I'm not sure space deserves them".
This is the same Pachauri who abused an eminent Indian glaciologist, Vijay Raina, for practising "voodoo" and "magical" science, and for indefensibly questioning the IPCC's credibility. In fact, Raina had drawn attention to the IPCC's 2007 howlers about Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035. Later the IPCC had to publish nine separate erratas to that single page of 497 words on glacier melt.

Laframboise tirelessly demonstrates that Pachauri and his institution are intricately connected with the green warriors of Greenpeace, WWF, Worldwatch and a host of other activist groups. She remains incredulous that Pachauri should flaunt rather than downplay these connections. He has even written effusive forewards to two Greenpeace tracts.
I had not until now realised that Pachauri's own TERI institute had accepted sponsorship money from the India chapter of WWF this year. Laframboise says, "No reasonable person can look at these facts and conclude that the IPCC cares about appearing impartial. No reasonable person can credit its chairman with sound judgement."
His self-described agenda is to transform the world to a new value system aligned to the green agenda, and coupled with massive wealth transfer from the West to the Third World, including India. This agenda-setting could be fine for a political party or lobby group, but Pachauri's IPCC is meant to be objectively evaluating research on the difficult and complex issue of human-caused global warming. As Laframboise says, you wouldn't expect a judge in a murder trial to go lunching with Crown prosecutor or the accused's barrister.
Just when I thought I knew most of the bad stuff, she fishes out stuff even worse. For example, Pachauri sent a video message to MBA students at his research group TERI, "encouraging them to be the torch bearers of the green campaign."
Would you believe - sorry but it's true - Pachauri last year accepted a "Green Crusader" award from the Indian chapter of the International Advertising Association. As Laframboise laments, "Where, oh where, are the frakking grown-ups?"
As she says, it's not as though Pachauri is some minor celebrity with a penchant for gaffes. He runs the IPCC. The IPCC's findings, valid or not, are convulsing modern industrial society. IPCC reports are attempting to steer the world's economy - especially the West's - to a lower energy, lower-growth trajectory, reducing the living standards of billions in the course of allegedly `saving the planet'. Australia's Labor government, ousted in September this year, had bet the ranch on the IPCC's veracity.
Laframboise provides some insights into how the IPCC, riddled as it is with conflicts of interests and flawed processes, has sailed on almost immune from criticism from the mainstream opinion-leaders. She notes that Iceland, Greece and Ireland all embarked on a course of financial profligacy that was manifestly heading for ruination. No voices cried: "Halt! This is madness!" apart from a few isolates who were speedily marginalised in the media and in the counsels of the wise. In Iceland's case, the banking losses amounted to $330,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. On a larger scale, the Great Financial Crisis was also the product of mass irrationality.
For those who have fully absorbed her anatomising of the IPCC in the Delinquent Teenager book, Into the Dustbin will cover familiar ground. There's the elucidation of how the IPCC breaks its own rules at will; how activists have infiltrated into its author and lead-author ranks, and how its supposedly gold-standard science is sometimes the effusions of young students still to earn their Master's, let alone Ph.D., degree. We are again walked through the UN shenannigans requiring the reservation of cushy spots on IPCC scientific panels for third world scientists and female scientists. Her essays tease out the critiques of Pachauri and the IPCC not from its enemies but from its friends such as the InterAcademy Council and the IPCC's own inside team.
This new book is easy to dip into and enlivened by many nuggets and comments not found in Delinquent Teenager.
With the fifth IPCC report imminent, Into the Dustbin ought to function as a vaccination for all my fellow-journalists against delusions about IPCC integrity and Pachauri's credibility. I fear, though, that the credulity of my profession will continue undiminished.
Journalist Tony Thomas MA, BEc, blogs at tthomas061.wordpress.com

so now theurj ,if you like,  bother me with your assorted propaganda lies , come on go ahead , i am

ready !

mm

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

oh and one more i got

this is patrick moore in english this time :

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/greenpeace-...

mm

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

oh and here some british ex-green voice

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/britains_mark_lynas_riles_his_green_mo...

i am still searching for the godfather of the british greens making even more radical statements

lately , it seems some are waking up to reality !

mm

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

and if this is all too much work to do , .....

well just read this article by laframboise where she shows why this latest "report " is

absolutly not trustworthy , its not even worth the paper its printed on.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/3_reasons_not_to_trust_the...

mm

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

and of course i need to add james lovelock ,the gaia dude , who now is furiously back paddling too : ))

he admits he was ..hm..äh...MISTAKEN !

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scienti...

mm

[Edward theurj Berge]

Donna Laframboise? That's your evidence? Really? She's been thoroughly debunked. And that she's Fox News' primary anti-climate change 'evidence' should be quite telling.

I have a few sincere questions max. This forum is called Integral Postmetaphysical Spirituality. You've provided us your spiritual discipline. But can you tell us how it is integral and postmetaphysical? You obviously disagree with Wilber, so with what about his integral corpus do you agree? You seem to agree with him on the mean green meme, so is there an integral level above green? What is it like? And/or with what other integral theorists do you agree and how? How are you integrally engaged? Same questions with postmetaphysics.

[13w6cecaz7s7h]

right running out of arguments and lookig for a way to ..debunk, and remove me from this honorouble

world saving site : )

i live my integrality in everyday life and have no theoritical contribution to offer whats o ever.

btw seeing the pompousness and at same time shallowness of this site ,increasingly

i mean what do you think you are doing : inventing the next religion ? how pompous is that ?

i am retreating anyway , all by myself : ))

my ass doesnt need a saving by the likes of you theurj, oh no very far from it

mm