Ford Mondeo Owners Manual (Europe)

There are two slide sets in Spanish with titles that indicate that the material .. Item 8 Title Be Safe with Pesticides, Use Pesticidas con Cuidado ' Address .. and evidence of cancer, reproductive damage or mutagenic effects in animal toxicfty publicidad a la existencia de los materiales educativos en salud y proteccion.

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Vaclav Klaus: Consummate Contrarian (Transitions Online Series Book 2) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Vaclav Klaus: Consummate Contrarian (Transitions Online Series Book 2) book. Happy reading Vaclav Klaus: Consummate Contrarian (Transitions Online Series Book 2) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Vaclav Klaus: Consummate Contrarian (Transitions Online Series Book 2) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Vaclav Klaus: Consummate Contrarian (Transitions Online Series Book 2) Pocket Guide.

From Publishers Weekly French phenomenologist Bachelard's classic study of the psychological affects of domestic space. Bailey offers a clear view of the breathtaking spectrum of possibilities inherent in improvisational practice. Yoga World Tibetan medicine is becoming better known in the Western hemisphere, and this lavishly illustrated volume makes a great contribution to the dissemination of Tibet's medical knowledge.

This work features the luminous recreations of traditional medical thanka paintings by the contemporary Nepalese master painter Romi Shrestha. The accompanying text by Ian Baker, who has studies with Hilalayan healers, yogins, and lamas, for fifteen years, unlocks the symbolism of these images for us. Language Notes Text: English, Russian translation --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Book Description ". This is the last of Bakhtin's extant manuscripts published in the Soviet Union. All but one of these essays the one on the Bildungsroman were written in Bakhtin's later years and thus they bear the stamp of a thinker who has accumulated a huge storehouse of factual material, to which he has devoted a lifetime of analysis, reflection, and reconsideration. Book Description "This magnificently edited and translated volume can be the beginning of a dialogue that will go beyond the monographic works of Bakhtin available in English up to now.

The Dialogic Imagination presents, in superb English translation, four selections from Voprosy literatury i estetiki Problems of literature and esthetics , published in Moscow in The volume also contains a lengthy introduction to Bakhtin and his thought and a glossary of terminology. Bakhtin uses the category "novel" in a highly idiosyncratic way, claiming for it vastly larger territory than has been traditionally accepted. For him, the novel is not so much a genre as it is a force, "novelness," which he discusses in "From the Prehistory of Novelistic Discourse.

In the final essay, he discusses literature and language in general, which he sees as stratified, constantly changing systems of subgenres, dialects, and fragmented "languages" in battle with one another. Book Description Rescued in from a storeroom in which rats and seeping water had severely damaged the fifty-year-old manuscript, this text is the earliest major work of the great Russian philosopher M. Toward a Philosophy of the Act contains the first occurrences of themes that occupied Bakhtin throughout his long career. The topics of authoring, responsibility, self and other, the moral significance of "outsideness," participatory thinking, the implications for the individual subject of having "no-alibi in existence," the difference between the world as experienced in actions and the world as represented in discourse--all are broached here in the heat of discovery.

This is the "heart of the heart" of Bakhtin, the center of the dialogue between being and language, the world and mind, "the given" and "the created" that forms the core of Bakhtin's distinctive dialogism. A special feature of this work is Bakhtin's struggle with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Put very simply, this text is an attempt to go beyond Kant's formulation of the ethical imperative.

Toward a Philosophy of the Act will be important for scholars across the humanities as they grapple with the increasingly vexed relationship between aesthetics and ethics.

Trump may pull US out of Paris agreement within two weeks

Cultural analysis as a critical practice is based on a keen awareness of the critic's situatedness in the present - the social and cultural present from which we look, and look back, at objects that are already of the past, objects that we take to define our present culture. Thus it can be summarized by the phrase "cultural memory in the present.

The essays gathered here represent the current state of an emerging field of inquiry. At the same time, they suggest to the larger academic world what cultural analysis can and should do, or be, as an interdisciplinary practice. The challenge for this volume is to counter the common assumption that interdisciplinarity makes the object of inquiry vague and the methodology muddled. In meeting that challenge, it offers close textual and visual readings of subjects ranging from Vermeer to abstract expressionism, from the Book of Rutl to Djuna Barnes's Nightwood, from the history of cinema to popular culture in Zaire.

Contributors offer textual and visual readings of subjects ranging from Vermeer to abstract expressionism, from the Book of Ruth to Djuna Barnes' , from the history of cinema to popular culture in Zaire. The index is primarily one of names. Annotation c. Book News, Inc. Book Description This anthology presents the early sages of Western philosophy and science who paved the way for Plato and Aristotle and their successors.

Democritus's atomic theory of matter, Zeno's dazzling "proofs" that motion is impossible, Pythagorean insights into mathematics, Heraclitus's haunting and enigmatic epigrams-all form part of a revolution in human thought that relied on reasoning, forged the first scientific vocabulary, and laid the foundations of Western philosophy. Jonathan Barnes has painstakingly brought together the surviving Presocratic fragments in their original contexts, utilizing the latest research and a newly discovered major papyrus of Empedocles. A literary biography of 19th-century French novelist, radical, and intellectual impresario Gustave Flaubert?

A meditation on the uses and misuses of language? A novel of obsession, denial, irritation, and underhanded connivery? A thriller complete with disguises, sleuthing, mysterious meetings, and unknowing targets? An extended essay on the nature of fiction itself? On the surface, at first, Julian Barnes's book is the tale of an elderly English doctor's search for some intriguing details of Flaubert's life.

Geoffrey Braithwaite seems to be involved in an attempt to establish whether a particularly fine, lovely, and ancient stuffed parrot is in fact one originally "borrowed by G. The first hint we have that all is not as it seems comes almost halfway into the book, when after a humorously cantankerous account of the inadequacies of literary critics, Braithwaite closes a chapter by saying, "Now do you understand why I hate critics? I could try and describe to you the expression in my eyes at this moment; but they are far too discoloured with rage. One passage perhaps best describes the overall effect of this extraordinary story: "You can define a net in one of two ways, depending on your point of view.

Normally, you would say that it is a meshed instrument designed to catch fish. But you could, with no great injury to logic, reverse the image and define the net as a jocular lexicographer once did: he called it a collection of holes tied together with string. Despite the lively voice of the British narrator, the text is too dense to understand without close study. The quotations are especially hard to follow. It's often difficult to tell whether the words are those of Flaubert or the author or another critic entirely.

Perhaps Crawford Logan's charming rendition of the author's wit and wisdom could be enjoyed by dedicated Flaubert scholars in search of an etymological treat. Jim, a taxi driver, finds Maxi in a park, takes him home and feeds him and, from then on, takes his new friend with him to work every day. Maxi loves the sights, the sounds and even the occasional emergencies--but most of all he loves Jim, who saved him from the streets. Jim is surprised when he begins receiving big tips, but readers--and this canny canine--know the reason why.

The Barraccas' narrative so perfectly echoes Maxi's jaunty attitude that children might suppose that being a New York taxi dog is the best job in the world. Buehner's black, yellow and white borders that surround the text cleverly suggest Checker cabs, and his use of dark, intense colors suggest a New York that is both familiar and funny. For dog fanciers, taxi riders and lovers of fine picture books, this is a sheer delight. Ages From School Library Journal K - Grade 2 --A stray dog's outlook takes a quick turn for the better when Jim, a New York City taxi driver, offers him a name, friendship, and a place in the front seat.

Maxi describes with infectious doggy delight the satisfactions of life on wheels: the unusual fares, the pleasure of both helping and entertaining people in a hurry, and of wearily dropping the cab off at the garage after a long day. Buehner uses an oil-over-acrylic technique that gives each scene a subtle, lively play of light and color. Background detail and byplay including a small cat that seems to follow the cab around will keep young readers glued to the illustrations. Alas, the engaging story idea based on a real encounter and brilliant pictures are chained to a singsong text in verse that combines pedestrian language with tediously long sentences, some of which exist only to make a rhyme.

Book Description In this second edition of Beginning Theory, the variety of approaches, theorists, and technical language is lucidly and expertly unraveled and explained, and allows readers to develop their own ideas once first principles have been grasped. Expanded and updated from the original edition first published in , Peter Barry has incorporated all of the recent developments in literary theory, adding two new chapters covering the emergent Eco-criticism and the re-emerging Narratology.

His work continues to influence contemporary literary theory and cultural studies. Image-Music-Text collects Barthes's best writings on photography and the cinema, as well as fascinating articles on the relationship between images and sound. Two of Barthes's most important essays, "Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative" and "The Death of the Author" are also included in this fine anthology, an excellent introduction to his thought. Book Description "[Mythologies] illustrates the beautiful generosity of Barthes's progressive interest in the meaning his word is signification of practically everything around him, not only the books and paintings of high art, but also the slogans, trivia, toys, food, and popular rituals cruises, striptease, eating, wrestling matches of contemporary life.

For Barthes, words and objects have in common the organized capacity to say something; at the same time, since they are signs, words and objects have the bad faith always to appear natural to their consumer, as if what they say is eternal, true, necessary, instead of arbitrary, made, contingent. Mythologies finds Barthes revealing the fashioned systems of ideas that make it possible, for example, for 'Einstein's brain' to stand for, be the myth of, 'a genius so lacking in magic that one speaks about his thought as a functional labor analogous to the mechanical making of sausages.

Review "Language was both a luxury and a discipline for Barthes. He pursued a subject through language until he cornered it, until its disguise fell away and it was revealed in a kind of epiphany. In his own way, he cleaned the face of Paris more thoroughly than Andre Malraux did when he ordered its buildings washed down to their original colors and arranged for lights to be played upon them. Musing on the kind of painting done by someone like Ingres, Barthes says that 'painters have left movement the amplified sign of the unstable.

He munched distinctions. His sentence rhythms were those of a man who talks with his hands. From Publishers Weekly In seven lucid, incisive essays written over a year period, Bartky confronts some of the ways in which women can be disempowered by the society they nonetheless support. With uncompromising logic, she shows how feminism can be integrated into philosophy. Women's acquiescence to their own sexual objectification and the inevitable failure of their efforts to match mass-marketed standards of beauty is discussed in terms of Marx's concept of alienation in "Narcissism, Femininity, and Alienation.

Bartky teaches philosophy at the University of Illinois. Book Description Bartky draws on the experience of daily life to unmask the many disguises by which intimations of inferiority are visited upon women. She critiques both the male bias of current theory and the debilitating dominion held by notions of "proper femininity" over women and their bodies in patriarchal culture. Book Description Theory of Religion brings to philosophy what Bataille's earlier book, The Accursed Share, brought to anthropology and history; namely, an analysis based on notions of excess and expenditure.

Bataille brilliantly defines religion as so many different attempts to respond to the universe's relentless generosity. Framed within his original theory of generalized economics and based on his masterly reading of archaic religious activity, Theory of Religion constitutes, along with The Accursed Share, the most important articulation of Bataille's work.

Georges Bataille , founder of the French review Critique, wrote fiction and essays on a wide range of topics. Distributed for Zone Books. From Library Journal Bateson was working on this book when he died in but was nowhere near completing it; his daughter added chapters and other material that she is careful to identify as her own. Those looking for a neat, logical chain of argument will not find it here. Bateson combines ideas from a wide range of sourcescybernetics, communication theory, Jungian psychology, biology, philosophy, evolution theory, ethics, etc.

The discussion is suggestive but lacking in focus. Bateson's fans will love this; others may feel confirmed in their belief that his most important contribution lies elsewherein his theory of the "double bind. Brody, U. Office of Personnel Management Lib. Book Description Chris Baty, motivator extraordinaire and instigator of a wildly successful writing revolution, spells out the secrets of writing -- and finishing -- a novel.

Every fall, thousands of people sign up for National Novel Writing Month NaNoWriMo , which Baty founded, determined to a write that novel or b finish that novel in -- kid you not -- 30 days. Now Baty puts pen to paper himself to share the secrets of success. With week-specific overviews, pep "talks," and essential survival tips for today's word warriors, this results-oriented, quick-fix strategy is perfect for people who want to nurture their inner artist and then hit print!

Anecdotes and success stories from NaNoWriMo winners will inspire writers from the heralding you-can-do-it trumpet blasts of day one to the champagne toasts of day thirty. Whether it's a resource for those taking part in the official NaNo WriMo event, or a stand-alone handbook for writing to come, No Plot? No Problem! Book Description Jean Baudrillard is one of the most celebrated and controversial of contemporary social theorists. Translated into English for the first time, this remarkable volume examines the full extent of his critical appraisal of social theories including traditional Marxism, cybernetics, ethnography, psychoanalysis, and feminist thought.

In particular, it offers the most complete elaboration of Baudrillard's concept of the simulacrum and his reorientation of social theory toward the issues of fashion, the body, and death. Symbolic Exchange and Death, originally published in France in , is a recognized classic and one of the most important sources for the redefinition of contemporary social thought.

First published in , this has appeared piecemeal in various guerrilla translations and already had its cultural effect. It's just a relief to get the full SP on the semiology of the death drive. It is a key intervention in the debates on modernity and postmodernity and the site of his postmodern turn. Anyone who wants to understand the complexity and provocativeness of Baudrillard's richest period must read this book.

Book Description This highly insightful and stimulating collection of relevant studies on verbal performance artistic action and event , seen from the point of view of sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, folklore studies and semiotics, represents a clear assembly of perspective and methodology. The initial essay is succinct and suggestive, and the scope of the theory is exemplified by four supplementary essays. The book provides readers of folklore, anthropology, linguistics, or any field interested in performance and its verbal dimensions with excellent background material for a contrastive approach to narrative, ritual, and ceremonial forms of verbal behavior in different sociocultural settings.

Book Description A new edition of a seminal text in the history of moral philosophy. Book Description Here a distinguished American historian challenges the belief that the eighteenth century was essentially modern in its temper. In crystalline prose Carl Becker demonstrates that the period commonly described as the Age of Reason was, in fact, very far from that; that Voltaire, Hume, Diderot, and Locke were living in a medieval world, and that these philosophers "demolished the Heavenly City of St.

Augustine only to rebuild it with more up-to-date materials. From the Back Cover "Will remain a classic-a beautifully finished literary product. Beard, American Historical Review; "The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers remains one of the most distinctive American contributions to the historical literature on the Enlightenment.

Philosophy, Modern -- 18th century, Philosophy and religion -- History -- 18th, century, History -- Philosophy -- History -- 18th, century. From Publishers Weekly Debate about how artists express political content in their work "has been disappointingly constrained" in America, according to Becker in her introduction to this collection of essays by intellectuals and artists from a number of different nationalities and perspectives. Highlights of part one, "Personal Responsibility and Political Contingencies," include Page Dubois's discussion of autonomous art as opposed to political art as a relatively new idea and Kathy Acker's brassy parable of a post-modern writer struggling with her loss of belief in the possibility of "art in this culture.

The book ends in a section titled "Theorizing the Future," in which Henry Giroux's discussion of the false image of progressiveness in Benetton ads and B. Ruby Rich's first-person meditation on how the "old models for political engagement in art are not working" project views of an art world to come. While much of the language here is academic "Rap developed as a relatively independent expression of black male artistic rebellion against the black bourgeois Weltanschauung " , the overall subject matter extends well beyond academe to post-revolutionary Czechoslovakia, an activist's prison life and struggling artists in Mexico City.

Detractors were eager to agree that the "culture of spontaneity" was a blind for neurotic misfits: the nihilist paint-dribbler, the nodding soloist, the sensation-addled writer who had "lost his eraser.


  1. jcbrunner's history annex (2);
  2. About the Author.
  3. Rêve dune vie (French Edition).
  4. vaclav klaus consummate contrarian transitions online series book 2 Manual?
  5. Activate (?) your science | Climate Etc.;

Trumpeter Tony Frusella knew what he was talking about when he quit Charlie Barnet's big band, calling it "just like the army. While film and photography would seem to deserve a chapter more than ceramics does Robert Frank, amazingly, goes unmentioned , the latter's inclusion suggests an acute historical eye at work, finding the keynotes of an era in activities from which the vain gaze of the present has silently shifted.

All rights reserved. Book Description From handshakes and toasts to chant and genuflection, ritual pervades our social interactions and religious practices. Still, few of us could identify all of our daily and festal ritual behaviors, much less explain them to an outsider. Similarly, because of the variety of activities that qualify as ritual and their many contradictory yet, in many ways, equally legitimate interpretations, ritual seems to elude any systematic historical and comparative scrutiny.

In this book, Catherine Bell offers a practical introduction to ritual practice and its study; she surveys the most influential theories of religion and ritual, the major categories of ritual activity, and the key debates that have shaped our understanding of ritualism. Bell refuses to nail down ritual with any one definition or understanding. Instead, her purpose is to reveal how definitions emerge and evolve and to help us become more familiar with the interplay of tradition, exigency, and self- expression that goes into constructing this complex social medium. Andrew M. Most sociologists would not be brave enough to reveal the connection between their own deepest personal fears and longings of their professional work, and maybe most of us should not do so.

But Bellah carries it off superbly. His introduction notably improves the usefulness of the rest of the book, both as sociology of religion and as a record of the religion of a sociologist. Mawhinney, Journal of Ecumenical Studies "[Beyond Belief] excellently illustrates the trends, methods and contributions which are being made today to the academic study of religion.

It merits the careful attention of all who are seriously concerned about religion in contemporary society. From Library Journal Committed to the idea that scientific scrutiny can clarify common human experiences, Ben-Ze'ev, codirector of the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Emotions at the University of Haifa, Israel, demystifies highly charged emotions like love, pride, fear, and disgust. The first section of this book focuses on the development of a general framework for understanding emotions, defined as adaptations to highly significant life changes.

It presents a smorgasbord of ideas and testable hypotheses, followed by a virtual catalog of emotions that are analyzed according to the established framework. These chapters provide insights into diverse emotional quandaries like extramarital affairs, the reality of love at first sight, and the difference between jealousy and envy. Amusing aphorisms are sprinkled throughout the text. Interdisciplinary in scope, it evinces strong scholarship and coherent analysis.

For those who like intellectual puzzles, this could be a very satisfying book covering a rapidly growing field, but it should have had tighter editing. Recommended for academic social science and philosophy collections. Jonathan Ree, Los Angeles Times "all of us will be able to savor the brackish pleasure of finding ourselves pictured within. Book Description This unique volume presents a debate between four of the top feminist theorists in the US today, discussing the key questions facing contemporary feminist theory, responding to each other, and distinguishing their views from others.

Book Description Studies on contemporary art and culture by one of the most original, critical and analytical minds of this century. Language Notes Text: English, German translation. From Publishers Weekly An extraordinary collection of writings of a major modern thinker and cultural critic, this is a companion volume to Illuminations, edited by Hannah Arendt. Here Benjamin evolves a theory of language as the medium of all creation, discusses theater and surrealism, recounts Berlin in the '20s, recalls conversations with Brecht, provides travelogues of various cities, including Moscow under Stalin.

PW called this "haunting, brilliant, modern. Review "There has been no more original, no more serious critic and reader in our time. When he committed suicide in , he destroyed his copy of the manuscript, and so for decades the work was believed lost. It is a complex, fragmentary work--more a series of notes for a book than a book itself--which probes the culture of the Paris arcades a cross between covered streets and shopping malls of the midth century and the flaneur "the man who walks long and aimlessly through the streets" in an "anamnestic intoxication [that] The Arcades Project is, frankly, so dense a work that one hardly has enough time to glimpse fleetingly at its sections--over pages of notes on Baudelaire alone!

His writings were left scattered in ephemeral publications, went unpublished or were simply left unfinished when, in , the critic committed suicide because he believed that the Gestapo was about to seize him. In Germany, his works have been compiled and scrupulously edited, and now, at last, American readers too have access to his final, great unfinished work in an edition that is both well translated and helpfully annotated by the editor of the German edition, Rolf Tiedemann. In , Benjamin began taking notes for a book that would critique the cultural, public, artistic and commercial life of Paris, a city Benjamin thought of as the "capital of the nineteenth century.

This edition is comprised of the fastidious notes he made for this never-completed study. Essentially, Benjamin was planning to write a prehistory of the 20th century. The lively arcades--colorful scenes of public mixing, modern shopping and quotidian activities of all sorts--figure as a focusing device. His ambition was to integrate a picture including advertising, architecture, department store shopping, fashion, prostitution, city planning, literature, bourgeois luxuries, slums, public transit, photography and much more.

His perspective is largely Marxist, but not in any conventional or dogmatic sense. Benjamin's chief virtue is an uncanny originality of vision and insight that transcends the constraints of ideology. From Publishers Weekly Over the past few years, Harvard's systematic presentation of the work of German cultural critic Benjamin has proved a revelation, including the first English translation of many minor texts that show him pioneering the denkbild or prose "thought figure" that structures swaths of his work and, most wonderfully, the uncategorizable riches of The Arcades Project.

This third of four planned volumes from MIT lecturer in literature Eiland and Jennings, professor of German at Princeton, offers two major texts that are new to English translated from the German by various hands , as well as a fascinating re-translation of one of the cornerstones of Benjamin's reputation, here rendered as the essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility.

But the real revelation is "Berlin Childhood around ," appearing for the first time in English, giving a window into the sophisticated phenomenological world of the young Benjamin as recalled by the older exile and enhanced by several of the 12 halftones here. The piece takes its place alongside One-Way Street volume one and "A Berlin Chronicle" volume two as a major, short monograph-like work, though the two versions included here are somewhat confusingly presented.

Other pieces will be familiar "Paris, Capital of the Nineteenth Century"; "Brecht's Threepenny Novel" , but "German Men and Women," another short book in itself, won't be: this series of 27 letters dating from to , selected and edited by Benjamin and published by the Frankfurter Zeitung in and as a book with introductory pieces by Benjamin in , will be fascinating to anyone interested in Romantic literature and culture. In short, this is another splendid volume that will leave aficionados on campus and off awaiting the final installment. From Publishers Weekly The appearance of this volume marks the completion of a grand project, bringing a fully representative set of texts by German critic Benjamin into English; volume 4 joins the first three installments along with The Arcades Project, Benjamin's massive set of meditations on 19th-century Paris.

While this volume has fewer surprises than earlier sets, it does include the third and final version of "The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility"; the previously untranslated "Germans of "; the famed, explosive "On the Concept of History"; "The Paris of the Second Empire of Baudelaire" which introduces the figure of the flaneur ; and, among other texts touching on Baudelaire, "Central Park," constructed of serial aphorisms and literary observations.

A number of reviews and epistolary exchanges with Adorno give a fuller picture of this period, as does the fine chronology at the book's end. Eiland, lecturer in literature at MIT, and Princeton University German professor Jennings show Benjamin caught within a Europe convulsed by Nazism, placing him in exile in Denmark with Brecht , in a transit camp on the outskirts of Paris and, finally, on the French-Spanish border. Benjamin's apparent suicide in a hotel on the Spanish side came after he was told that the border was closed and that his party would be returned to France the next day.

These events are handled with extreme care by the editors, as are Benjamin's marvelous works, which remain inimitable and irreplaceable. His work has mostly been unavailable in English translations, but this collection marks the first of three proposed volumes of his essays. In his early work, we encounter Benjamin as an idealistic university student and come to see him commenting on the aesthetics of such subjects as morality in children's books, the uses of force and violence, and writers such as Goethe and Dostoyevsky.

From Publishers Weekly Walter Benjamin's posthumous influence as philosopher and critic has grown since his suicide in , when it appeared that his escape from France into Spain would end with deportation to a concentration camp. Brodersen's biography, awkwardly and sometimes impenetrably translated and edited, will do Benjamin's established reputation no harm while doing little to make his ideas more accessible. Born in Berlin in , Benjamin outlasted WWI as a graduate student but was denied the essential postdoctoral Habilitation, which would have opened doors to an academic post.

He made his way instead as a freelance critic. A working wife from whom he was later divorced and an allowance reluctantly continued by his father, a merchant, kept him going when he made little from his writings, which nevertheless brought him increasing respect from his peers, despite the pervasive anti-Semitism of his time. Expecting recognition to come slowly, he wrote wryly of his intellectual "wine cellar.

Although Brodersen notes in a preface that he was refused access to documents by the writer's estate, the most valuable dimension of his book may be reproductions of documents and pictures captions alone seen by PW that illuminate Benjamin's career and flesh out the inadequate text.

While the biography furnishes some clues about the rivalries in perceptions and personalities within the German intelligentsia between the wars, extracting them is hard going. But until recently, most of his work was unavailable in English; the handful of essays that could be read in English, like "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," were undisputed classics, but the full spectrum of Benjamin's thought remained untapped.

That has changed with Harvard University's publication of the multivolume Selected Writings. This second volume covers Benjamin's work from to , the period in which he established himself as a leading public intellectual, and encompasses a wide variety of literary forms addressing an even wider variety of subject matter. The editors have provided a chronological essay, which helps place the assembled writings in the context of Benjamin's life; the collection considered as a whole will undoubtedly be of vital importance to any scholar of modern European philosophy.

His great critical work encompasses three metaphysical themes: how things and people move from strangeness to become part of oneself; how the self endlessly changes; and how eternal solitude characterizes that self. This second volume of his selected writings Vol. The notes are clear, and the chronology is an extended essay on Benjamin's life during these years and his profound relationships with Brecht and Scholem. Redemption was an important word in Benjamin's work, and his redemption is present in these critical essays and fragments. This volume cannot be praised too highly.

Essential for academic and large public libraries. Book Description Susan Bennett's highly successful Theatre Audiences is a unique full-length study of the audience as cultural phenomenon. It considers both theories of spectatorship and the practices of different theatres and their audiences.

Published here in a new updated edition, Theatre Audiences now includes a new preface by the author, a new chapter on intercultural theatre, a revised conclusion encompassing the influences of cultural materialism and psychoanalysis on audience theory, as well as an updated bibliography. A must for anyone interested in spectatorship and theatre audiences. Book Description This important contribution to the sociology of religion provides an analysis that clarifies the often ironic interaction between religion and society.

Berger is noted for his concise and lucid style. From the Publisher This important contribution to the sociology of religion provides an analysis that clarifies the often ironic interaction between religion and society. There are no coherent ideas to be extracted from his writings of any period, only fire and imagination, violence and poetry, and an ungovernable desire for strong sensations. From Library Journal This will certainly be the definitive source on improvisational jazz. A leader in the field, Berliner ethnomusicology, Northwestern covers all aspects of improvisation as art form, science, and way of life.

Cutting no corners, he includes a vast range of article topics from inspiration and arrangements to evaluation and audience interaction , music texts from the s to the present , artist interviews, and disc-, video-, and bibliographies. Of the caliber of Grove's Dictionary of Music, this book is no less important to any serious music collection. Practicing musicians will be satisfied by the text and musical examples, while lay readers will come to understand the significance of jazz in American history and culture.

This extraordinary accomplishment is well worth the investment for all academic and large public libraries. Cynthia Ann Cordes, Onondaga Cty. Review " Book Description Gerald Berreman's ethnographic study of a hill village in India is widely regarded as a classic in the field of social anthropology. In this new edition, Berreman returns to this village after ten years to record the ethnographic continuity and change in village lifestyle.

A new prologue adds important insights to the bases for the ethnographic descriptions and analyses by outlining the research conditions of this study. A new epilogue records Berreman's findings after revisiting the village--focusing on the trends found in the village and the surrounding region to draw implications for the country at large.

Book Description In an eloquent and informative style, Berry introduces the history and philosophy of Buddhism and provides general readers with a complete understanding of the Buddhist interpretation of earthly life and spiritual destiny. Book Description How did the representation of the divine come to be an issue of philosophical import? Why was the biblical proscription of "graven images" interpreted differently by Jews, Muslims, and Christians? How have modern thinkers and artists addressed notions of the sacred in the realm of art? Ha, Thanks for that Doc. That kind of course sounds interesting.

Once upon a time I subjected myself to experimentation to make money so I could eat. Some big ass needle got shoved in my artery arm goes cold and then they slide you in the MRI to watch the radio active crap they pumped into your blood stream. Paid pretty good. It was better than being hungry. With the greatest of respect AA, put up or shut up.

Yes, Sanger had some questionable views, but she also did a great deal of good through her attempts to promote birth control to all Americans, not just African Americans. And whatever one thinks of her views on race and eugenics, using the above quote to suggest that she wanted to actually exterminate the Negro population is still a cheap smear on her, and suggesting it is somehow comparable to the staments by climate scientists quoted by Judith above is a cheap smear on them.

The Eugenics movement was as evil as Nazism or Communism, I do not say they were bastards, but look at the cool uniforms and ballistic missiles. I like science for its own sake, I have no problem with scientists studying the climate or even modeling it. When they lie about what they can measure and can model they cross the line from investigators into frauds. Whatever bandwagon Dr Curry is riding, we can at least be assured that the jackass tied to the tailgate is you. It took me a second to even understand what you were referencing, until I recognized the name as that of the young man brutalized and murdered in Wyoming a few years back.

What that has to do with a donkey tied to the back of a wagon is beyond me. Perhaps not Matthew Sheppard worthy, but lame nonetheless. In my opinion Michael is a braying ass who offers nothing of substance. And as someone who grew up watching westerns, the image of a wagon with a horse, cow or donkey tied to the back is one that easily comes to mind when c considering the band wagon image Michael brought up. Any attempt to paint it in the way Robert did is vile.

I believe that what she has become is a bureaucrat and perhaps an activist as well. Not an issue of intelligence — one of agenda and credibility. Your point of everyone having an agenda is fair to a point. But you want to be careful not to over reach with it.

In evaluating possible agendas between Dr Lubchenko and Ms LaFrambise, which one is in a better position to carry out theirs? Whi What are the motivations each might have? Dr Lubchenko is in a position of power with regard to policy and regulation. She is head of what is supposed to be a science based organiztion. The obligations on Dr L are much different than those on Ms L. I believe that needs to be taken into consideration if you want to make a comparison. All things are not equal in this case.

Dont talk to Joshua about Power. And we all have certain amount of power. LaFramboise has less power than Lubchenko. L is now going to turn NOAA into a propaganda machine, I would observe that any intelligence she has is more than offset by her hackdom. Curry, I keep getting the feeling that the gut feeling is settled, but more discoveries are made every year concerning climate. And there was me thinking your main service was to show just how easy it is to get lots of praise from antiscience wingnuts by appearing to pander to their prejudices see above, and Climate etc comment threads passim.

Yes, I know, mean spirited. VSGuy — It is also possible that you really do believe your science and have great concern. Nor would it in any way convince me that the rest of what you said is valid. These academics have some understanding of the science of climate change………. I guess we could be kind and suggest she has some understanding of these, but is very prone to circular reasoning and tortured interpretations of material outside of her training and expertise.

VTG — You have a good point. It is much better to deride, denigrate, and humiliate non-climate scientists. They are nothing but illiterate trash and as such deserve no say in the course of their lives. They should just STFU and do whatever the climate scientists believe in their gut to be the right thing for Humanity and the Earth. They know nothing. Anonymous coward is just a descriptor. Michael obviously doesnt want to convince you because he really doesnt think that A the planet is at stake OR B you can stop his agenda. If he is not certain of this, if it is possible that he might change minds and the planet is at stake then the pre cautionary principle says he should try.

Further, there is every possibility that mocking his opponents will only make them more resistent to change. So, go ahead do the game theory matrix. Show how mocking ones opponents is more effective than. I think the majority of people here have pretty much made up their minds on the issue in hand and are not likely to be convinced by anyone on the other side. Actually, engaging in heated and sometimes intemperate arguments in forums such as this seems to me to be entirely consistent with how people who care about an issue behave.

Ultimately a lot of what goes on here and most similar forums will make no difference either way to whether action is taken to tackle AGW. This may come as a shock, but real scientists in the same field frequently get into heated arugments over what hyptheses are right or should be persued. Scientists tend to be a argumentative lot. Except we are not talking about arguments here. We are talking about trash talking which is what Micheal does. My argument is pretty simple. When a skeptic trash talks its pretty clear he doesnt care about reasoning together.

I would like to change his mind. I assume Micheal cares about the planet as well and would like to change minds. He thinks that his agenda will win regardless and changing minds is not important. He really doesnt care about the planet. Now, it wouldnt be that bad if he only trash talked in half of his comments. I could understand someone who spent some of his time trying to talk rationally to people who dont want to be convinced and some of his time trash talking. You know a human being. Hell, the ratio of lurkers to commenters is usually big. On the chance that his example of speaking rationally on occasion MIGHT convince a lurker you would think he would try it.

But no. Its full bore trash talking. You would think that he might think about those who read but never comment. Of course since i use my name, I can say that I have met people in real life who read comments and never comment themselves. Their perception of the fights they witness is something folks might consider.

I say that knowing full well That I am no angel nor do I expect Micheal to be one. However, he might consider trying a few new things. I hear Websters is currently discussing whether or not to replace the photo currently in their illustrated edition with your picture. I think non climate scientists, like myself, should try to understand the facts behind one of the most pressing issues for humanity today. Where we lack expertise, trusting the views of experts seems sensible. Summarising those views is what the IPCC is for. Where we do have the necessary expertise, which I do in some aspects , digging into the background, doing the maths, and reaching a deeper understanding is a great to be able to achieve.

If, however, that process leads us to the conclusion that we are right and the experts are wrong, it would be wise to act with humility in the knowledge that we are, most likely, mistaken. Listening to contrary opinions would be sensible, and it would be best of all to publish our analysis in the literature to allow the scientific community to respond us, and for us to learn from their appraisal of our work.

Whereas what you see here, and I absolutely stand by my words, are antiscientific wingnuts determined to ignore the evidence and to continue repeating obvious nonsense, already debunked times beyond listing. Just to give two very obvious recent examples, the post by Dave Springer above and the Pope post I responded to below, but hundreds more will be shortly posted. People often state the evidence is being ignored. What evidence is it that you find has to be ignored in order for someone to not be convinced?

You write about a scientific consensus, but what is it that you believe there is a scientific consensus regarding? Is there a sceintific consensus regarding what the rate of warming will be as a function of doubling CO2 within say. The answer is obviously no! Is there a scientific consensus on how much sea level will rise over the next 50 to years? Is there a scientific consensus on the net harms vs. Excellent start on a great idea Rob. It would be interesting to catalog a broad spectrum of climate debate subjects, noting the differences in measurement and conclusion.

Of what practicality is the doctrine of consensus given that the myriad of components contributing to the sum are rigorously debated? Two years is weather. Ten years is a stretch to call it weather. Fourteen years is a bigger stretch. Seventeen years according to Ben Santer is enough to establish anthropogenic influence. Feel free an answer with something substantive for a change.

Politicization of any of the noble causes has led to pollution of the message. The very nature of politics is influence and compromise. No where in science do I see a comparable paradigm. Research requires time and money so politicalization becomes the process, and for some, the goal. Lubchenko belongs elsewhere, not the head of a science organization; maybe head of Wild Life Federation. That will cause there to be massive snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere, during the cold season of , and Earth will cool more.

When the oceans are warm, it always snows more and that is why Earth temperature stopped rising and is starting the cooling that always follows a warming. Look at the actual data. I look out my window and see snow. Check the date on that reference. Trust me, we have snow here.

In fact it is one of the nice things about living up here. Well, mostly it was sitting on the beach enjoying a cold beer. As to harm, perhaps you could address the point as to whether this is evidence for a warming world or not before moving quite so swiftly on?

Or is it too unformfortable to admit the reality?

If you believe that the arctic has NEVER melted to this extent in the summer before you need to learn a bit more. It has not melted to this extent recently, but it is NOT unprecedented by any measure.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Rob, a rather tedious semantic point, and it comes across as a rather desperate attempt to downplay the significance of the collapse of Arctic ice in recent decades. I am not at all sure it is significant. It is evidence that the earth is warming. It is whether the warming is something we need to worry about. That is where climate scientists fail. They predict effects using models and make claims which the evidence to link their claims the mechanisms at work.

Which exactly the point of this post by Dr Curry. Activist scientists are lousy scientists, as they too easily take that which they know and run off making claims and reaching conclusions in areas they know little about. If you really believe that words have no meaning and are just semantic exercises which can mean anything you want them to, then you are a fool. You chose the term unprecedented. Either defend your choice or acknowledge that you overstated your point. Scientists who are skeptical of monsters and dragons, and who have the audacity to say so in public.

Where would I be without you? See how easy it is to divert a discussion with an inane question? At least I was only diverting a diversion. Just being Joshua to Joshua. And you would think the Climate Etc. Dr Hanson is an activist. Getting arrested on purpose to call attention to oneself is the act ov an activist. Dr Lubchenko is apparently one, based on her speech this post is aboput. If it is job to research a subject, you should be available in that capacity to provide comment on the results of that research. If you think people are not listening and dfeel compelled to do more, that is fine.

You do it as a private citizen. However I cannot respect the fact that he uses his position to advance a personal cause. Even more so when he is being compensated for it financially. What I was referring to is that we see modelled projections of temperatures in the future and then we see all sorts of predictions of what is going to happen as a result of those temperature rises, yet without any evidence provided which links cause higher temps to effects drought, flood, storms, etc.

Remember earlier this year when there was all the talk about a record tornado season and this being evidence of climate change? At least that was what was presented on a Nova presentation I watched this year. But in general, although there will be occasions when people will go further than is really justified, informed opinion about the future consequences is based on published scientific literature. Rob, Arctic ice melt is not evidence of the globe warming. In fact according to our satellites which were specifically designed to measure global average temperature in the lower troposphere the earth has been cooling at an accelerating pace beginning 15 years ago.

The cause could be many things. Winds play a large role in summer ice extents. Slower mixing of cold deep water with warm surface water could cause it. Albedo-lowering black carbon soot deposition could cause it. Most of the energy that reaches the earth falls much closer to the equator. Arctic sea ice is a little bitch subject to the whims of winds and ocean currents. The warmists are increasingly looking like fools with each passing year of declining global average temperature. The core fanatics will become increasingly bitter, angry, shrill, and in denial even while the thoughtful among them quietly distance themselves.

Or maybe not. Maybe the next decade will see global average temperature start rising with a vengeance. Only time will tell. Heat melts ice. The heat flux into the arctic has increased. Heat melts ice, but wind affects a thing called heat transfer coefficient. It also affects a similar thing called the mass transfer coefficient, which is related to the rate of phase-change heat transfer. I swear that I can see an opening in above the Gakkel ridge on a time lapse version of Arctic Sea ice shown DotEarth in This co-incided with increased Gakkel Ridge vulcanism.

In February , Arctic ice also averaged 6. Ice thickness is the same as it was 72 years ago. From a Special Correspondent. By Air Mail. Is it getting warmer at the North Pole? How has global average temperature managed to decline over the past decade even as Arctic summer ice extent flirts with year lows?

Why would it require a PhD in atmospheric physics to notice that CO2 growth has continued even while our satellites find global average temperature falling? If you give us a clear reason for your global warming denial by admitting your ignorance of the basics, why continue a debate that is settled? Limited time offer: chop chop. The sea temp still hovers at 0 C in the summer.

Will warmer seas increase evaporation and thus snow in the far arctic, which stays well below the snow point. Global temp averages does not melt arctic ice. Heat flow to the arctic and thus increased temperature may melt sea ice. Maybe winds or current transfers of heat cause late summer increased melting but if it stays below freezing, why the recent melt?

Is it a trend or does it reflect a natural cycle? Anyone got a recent article on the arctic melt? Yes, where ice is melting and above ice that is melting you will find temps at the melting point of ice.. And as to the real question — what exactly is the danger to mankind from record low annual artic ice — the world wonders. Then why do they not actually present the evidence? Apply ALL principles of scientific forecasting. Quantify the clouds. Verify the codes. Validate the models. Rectify the wayward models. Correct models to match decreasing hurricanes.

Do the science correctly. Address the impacts on the poor. Correctly calculate costs of adaptation versus mitigation. Address the far more critical issues of providing liquid transport fuels. With validated objective independent science, Then we might begin to understand the issues.

Then statesmen can rise to address true stewardship. David, I agree with just about everything you say, and I am sure that what you have said is obvious to everyone, including the proponents of CAGW. Surley if there was anything they could do to rectify what you have observed, they would have done so. The fact of the matter is, the science of CAGW has been pushed as far as possible with current knowledge, and it cannot be significantly improved. The proponents have tried to prove that CAGW exists beyone all scientific doubt, and they have failed; miserably.

But they are so far down the cul-de-sac that they will never agree with this, there is no turning back for them. Jim Cripwell Nowhere close. What little has been done shows very large room for improvement. We have not seen 10, Class 1 meteorological stations established around the world to complement the Argos ocean sensors. There is a lot that can be done to restore objective rigorous science.

The point about enviro studies is important. The method of democratic public policy is advocacy. The method of science is careful testing. The two methods are virtually opposite one another. By bridging the gap environmentalism threatens both. The public is being fooled by exaggerated scientific claims, while science is being compromised at the same time. This cannot end well, yet it will end. These academics have some understanding of the science of climate change….

Activate (?) your science

Being more subtle and dextrous and foolhardy , I climbed onto the roof of LSE and from there to the roof of the ITV building, entering by the top of the lift shaft. I positioned myself so that a camera on him would catch me unfurling a Rag poster, which I did just as the singer twisted in my direction. He was quite startled. Michael It would be unkind to allow you the delusion that your comment has merit. Furthermore, understanding the distortions of climate science imposed by funding bias and environmental activists would go along way towards providing logical useful professional comments.

I pray that you rise to the challenge. Articulate your position, write up, pass it through peer review. Robert Can show evidence that you can professionally address the science? Or only commit rhetoric? See ClimateAudit. Do you seriously want people to look at stuff that has worse transparency than the IPCC? Steven Mosher Yes seriously Steven. The report had pages. There is alot of material in there. Try reading it sometime.

Ch 9 Human Health Effects shows alot of evidence that colder weather has greater health impacts that warmer weather. Why are so many seniors migrating to Florida from Maine for an 18 C increase in temperature? Is the mild warming likely 1. Well thank you, geek A long time ago Jane used to be a good marine ecologist e. The problem comes when a scientist has to pick sides and carry the baggage of those who really want something different than you do. You get co-opted, sometime without realizing it. Or maybe sometimes you succumb to the thrill. Either way, your integrity is endangered and you have a hard time seeing it.

Your comments and suggestions on how to restore integrity to climate science seem to mirror those of Donna LaFramboise, as summarized in your first point:. Nah, she thought the guy was a good scientist. The poor woman is a captive of an obsolete ideology. She belongs in the 18th Century. Totally agree. It is amazing. I am always wary of my attempts to criticise our hostess, for whom I have enormous admiration. It seems to me that she is in a position where her ideas could influence many others. Science is being threatened by this activism in CAGW. There is a need for science and scientists in general to speak out much more forcibly against the sort of thing we saw in the recent AMS statement.

Our hostess seems to want to be on both sides of the fence at the same time. She continually has threads that are out and out proponents of the validity of CAGW. And then she comes out with this one, warning of the dangers to science by too much CAGW activism. Will the real Dr. Judith Curry please stand up and be counted. Jim Cripwell You can only understand complex scientific and cultural issues by seriously exploring all aspects of it. See Proverbs The list is long. It is no wonder that you do not post your real name when you write such stupid statements.

So somehow you know how all people who consider themselves libertarian think? Are you always prejudiced, or only on selective topics? Rob, my personal experience with libertarians has not been positive, and assuming you are one, you reinforce my negative impression of libertarians. If there are libertarian organizations that believe AGW is going to be a problem that should be addressed by government action, please indentify them. If there are any libertarians who that believe AGW is going to be a problem that should be addressed by government action, please indentify them. I do not consider myself a libertarian, but I do agree with what I understand to be libertarian positions on several topics such as the need to balance the federal budget.

What actions do you believe that the US government should take, and why? By why, I am hoping you can explain what results will come about as a result of the actions you advocate. I do not agree with you on the need for a balanced budget. In a recession or war, it would be stupid to insist on a balanced budget. Over the long term, however, I would like to see budget surpluses and deficits balancing out.

I favor government measures that will reduce pollution and conserve our oil, natural gas, and coal for future generations of Americans. If their use is spread over more years, the pollution is less harmful, and we do our descendants a favor. Apparently you believe government should be acting and anyone who disagrees with you is to be marginalized. Nevertheless, there is a strong correlation between paleolibertarianism and climate change denial.

Robert is correct in saying fundamentalist libertarians seem to gravitate towards climate denial. You can go to the denizens page to find out a bit about my backgropund. Exactly what is yours? Are you someone more learned, experienced or accomplished than the rest of us? And yes AGW is a problem and yes it should be addressed by government action. I would be interested in what actions you believe are appropriate for the US government to be taking today. I would recommend a change in policies towards the construction of nuclear power plants to standardize and greatly expedite design and construction approval.

The higher mileage standards make sense. Imo it all comes down to the specifics. If you are concerned that some of the proposed programs for addressing global warming are bad, it is better to attack those solutions, and propose better solutions, rather than dismiss the problem.

Arguing about policies and priorities is how ideologies should fight it out in a democracy, in my opinion. Not by trying to sell their own version of reality. There is a difference between accepting or denying that a situation exists and accepting that it is a problem, or at least a problem big enough that action is imperative. I accept that we are getting warmer. What I do not yet accept, because little evidence has been provided, is that getting warmer is a great problem. At least one so dire that we need to radically change how we live.

Guess that makes me a simple-minded libertarian. Libertarians embrace laissez faire, a philosophy that opposes government regulations. Libertarians can be true to their values, and still support the need for collective political action to deal with climate change. Just like the need for a military, or other vital government functions, the need to deal with climate change could be acknowledged by a libertarian.

Removing any subsidies or other market distortions that favor carbon pollution free roads that encourage driving, public ports that subsidize shipping. Eliminating local energy monopolies utilities. Promoting free trade in energy. A simple, transparent carbon tax, rather than a hodgepodge of subsidies for low carbon technologies and regulations. Deregulation of nuclear energy. A libertarian might oppose some things I might think were sensible mileage standards, energy efficiency regulations, use of eminent domain to improve rail and power infrastructure and I might have concerns about some of their ideas what happens to the freedom of movement of the poor if roads are privately owned?

Robert, I think free trade results in monopolies. Free trade to me means trade free of government interference. In the absence of regulations, monopolies will come about. Monopolies maximize profits, which is the goal of businesses. My point is that a libertarian could, if they chose to, come up with a strong and authentically libertarian program to fight global warming.

Given the possibility that reducing anthropogenic GHG emission will control the climate then that would require somehow making India and China along with other developing economies drastically reduce emissions. How would that be accomplished within the libertarian framework of non-intervention in world affairs? I disagree with your inclusion of roads as a subsidy however. The building of transportation systems has always been a function of government. The only reason to target them is if you have the goal of forcing people out of automobiles.

For one, you mischaracterize them. While a monopoly, they are a heavily regulated one. And their existence does not prevent citizens from forming their own co-ops or public utility districts. We see those sort of initiatives all the time. Had three last year.

One passed and the other two did not. Recall the name Enron? But before enacting it I still want to see more proof regarding the threat. You should have started with this one. Although I would not go so far as deregulation, I would eliminate many of the barriers to construction and permitting of plants. TIMG56 : 3 carbon tax verse hodge podge. Pretty much. We all know that maintaining and improving quality of life depends upon a continuous improvement in access to energy. Jerry Pournelle has said often and accurately that cheap, plentiful energy is the key to freedom and prosperity.

With that in mind, does no one think it odd that the policies of governments in general and ours specifically are empirically designed to drive up the price of energy while restricting its supply? Or that the impact of restricting the use of fossil fuels is all positive? Pournelle started publishing SF 40 years ago. I wrote an article about him in in regard to his opinion on Intelligent Design and utter disrespect for a pompous ass named Clinton Richard Dawkins.

I first encountered his work more than forty years ago, before he started cranking on his eligibility for the John W. Campbell Award , when he wrote a nice article on the Nomonhan Incident for a small-circulation wargaming magazine. You mistate the libertarian philosphy. Libertarians are not opposed to all government regulation or policy actions. Libertarians want government actions to be efficient and to make sense. Libertarians generally believe that there should be individual responsibility for the outcomes of ones own actions and that people should not expect government to bail them out if they have made poor decisions.

Imo Progressives believe that government is frequently the most efficient means of taking care of a countries citizens. The Earth will be devoid of all human life, and most animal life and plant life as well. But some bacteria and slime will remain and continue You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way climate change is taking us. It is taking us to our end as a species.

In a way, it makes sense. We did it to ourselves. We did it ourselves. We dug our own hole, while trying to build a towering temple to the sky. It's okay. We had our chance. But we couldn't curb our appetites. Born from the swamps, we shall return to the swamps. Evolved from the void, we will return to the void. One might call it poetic justice. Celestial justice. Everlasting justice. Star life. We came out of nothing, and we will return to nothing. Blame it on our genes, our sharp minds, our penetrating intelligence and human brains. Even as you read these words, the planet's millions of engines, small and large, household and industrial, are purring, revving, singing their song -- and spewing CO2 emissions into the very atmosphere that sustains us, the very atmosphere that is now hastening our demise.

At this very moment -- NOW! Even as you read these words, it is too late. Too late. The list of dooms we're told to fear is long. Global warming, a. Other grim ghosts of Christmas future include: the disappearance of fish from the oceans in 50 years, punishing pandemics, hospital superbugs, tainted food, violent extremists with dirty bombs and viruses, expanding ozone-layer holes, genetically-modified foods, obesity in children, cities that don't work anymore and diminishing oil production that will make petroleum products scarce and expensive.

It's getting tougher all the time for intelligent laypeople to decide which scientists are wise Cassandras who deserve our attention - and which are crass Chicken Littles who should be scorned. To help us decide how much trust should be invested in science and scientists, the University of King's College - in partnership with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs - is sponsoring a Trust in Science Lecture Series this academic year.

The circle the series is trying to square is this: most polls say people trust scientists much more than they do politicians or journalists. Scientists are seen as unbiased seekers after truth, noble people who only have our best interests in mind when they warn us of dark days ahead. Dispensers of truth? But are scientists really dispassionate dispensers of unsullied truth? Or, like the rest of us, are they sometimes purveyors of political pap that more reflects their partisan, non-scientific sides than their white-coated purity?

The science-struggle-of-the-month in November features the deeply flawed Kyoto protocol versus the out-of-step position taken by the Harper government at an international conference in Kenya. Those lined up against the Harperians believe the world is rolling rapidly downhill toward a catastrophe that will, at best, bring the breakdown in social order -and, at worst, the biological end of humankind. It would be a worldwide re-enactment of the end of Easter Island's civilization so exquisitely described by scientist Jared Diamond in Collapse, his scary enviro-end bestseller.

The latest Jared-iad, out in time to stoke your Christmas depression, is from Canadian scientist Thomas Homer-Dixon, whose The Upside of Down will make you mix one martini too many as you read it beside a Christmas tree that should never have been cruelly cut down. Homer-Dixon even offers sage thoughts on how we might build a new Jerusalem from the ashes of world-wide social breakdown after an environmental collapse.

Good on you, Homer-Dixon. How did scientists become society's trustworthy tellers of truth, anyway? Keepers of the flame The first King's lecturer, Harvard's Steven Shapin, said the ascent of scientists to their current status of keepers of the flame of progress is a recent phenomenon. Because of that, he said, we, the laity, need to distinguish carefully between the scientists' expertise in the "is" - the inductively provable knowledge part, and the "ought" - the unprovable, ethical part of scientific theory.

It's the difference between having the skill to do something and the wisdom to know what to do with that skill. Society must increasingly concentrate on that dichotomy and grasp that being a great scientist doesn't automatically make that scientist a philosopher-king. The next lecture, on Nov. He will lift the curtain on how recent controversies within science show the extent to which the scientific community both trusts and distrusts itself - and how that community deals with the trust issue.

Other lectures will follow in January and March. See www. Those who want to go beyond fear-mongering and the paroxysms of partisan peddlers of "scientific truth" who clutter the media with calls to arms should hear the outstanding speakers who've been enlisted to help us in this quest. Kudos to King's for helping us understand trust in science, one of the most challenging intellectual voyages of our fearful time on Planet Earth. BFlem aol. Commons c The end of humankind's time on Earth is coming to an end, and I welcome it.

God knows, we've messed things up real bad, here on Planet Earth, and now it's time to pay the piper. We are headed forextinction, and you know something, we deserve it. Because when you look at us, our history, our backstory, what did we achieve? Miracles, yes, and then some. But these miracles have done us in. Climate change cannot be unchanged. The course has been set.

There's no turning back. Well, years is a long time to plan for the end. Start planning. I'm glad I lived in the last half of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century. It's been a wonderful life, a wonderful ride, and I learned alot. You don't have to read the fine print, either. The message is in plain English for anyone to read: increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have sealed our fate. By -- okay, , if you want to stretch it -- we will be goners. The Earth will remain, of course, good old Earth, our temporary home amidst the stars.

But we, the human species, will soon be gone. And there is not one single thing anyone can do about it. This is the sad,bare, bald, truth. I think that, when all is said and done, we deserved this. And people usually get what they deserve. Don't you agree? Full stop. Of course, I won't be here to witness those last pathetic years, weeks, days. Neither will you. I had a good life at this time in cosmic time, and it was a very interesting exercise in conciousness, and I loved every minute of my existence.

I am grateful for the very miracle of being here at all. But I've seen the future: come the year 2, okay, year if you want to stretch it a bit it's bleak. Bleaker than bleak. It's become dark at that point. The point of no return is that there is no return. We never adequately learned that lesson. Too late now. How much longer? And then it's over.

Humankind is on its way out. NOTA BENE: Even as you read these words, the planet's millions of engines, small and large, household and industrial, are purring, revving, singing their song -- and spewing CO2 emissions into the very atmosphere that sustains us, the very atmosphere that is now hastening our demise.

Of course, you think years is so far away, who cares? You should care. And you do. But it's too late James Lovelock: The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as , years Each nation must find the best use of its resources to sustain civilisation for as long as they can Published: 16 January Imagine a young policewoman delighted in the fulfilment of her vocation; then imagine her having to tell a family whose child had strayed that he had been found dead, murdered in a nearby wood.

Or think of a young physician newly appointed who has to tell you that the biopsy revealed invasion by an aggressive metastasising tumour. Doctors and the police know that many accept the simple awful truth with dignity but others try in vain to deny it. Whatever the response, the bringers of such bad news rarely become hardened to their task and some dread it.

We have relieved judges of the awesome responsibility of passing the death sentence, but at least they had some comfort from its frequent moral justification. Physicians and the police have no escape from their duty. This article is the most difficult I have written and for the same reasons. My Gaia theory sees the Earth behaving as if it were alive, and clearly anything alive can enjoy good health, or suffer disease.

Gaia has made me a planetary physician and I take my profession seriously, and now I, too, have to bring bad news. The climate centres around the world, which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth's physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as , years.

I have to tell you, as members of the Earth's family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger. Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than , years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.

Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth's surface we have depleted to feed ourselves. Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This "global dimming" is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse.

We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable. By failing to see that the Earth regulates its climate and composition, we have blundered into trying to do it ourselves, acting as if we were in charge.

By doing this, we condemn ourselves to the worst form of slavery. If we chose to be the stewards of the Earth, then we are responsible for keeping the atmosphere, the ocean and the land surface right for life. A task we would soon find impossible - and something before we treated Gaia so badly, she had freely done for us. To understand how impossible it is, think about how you would regulate your own temperature or the composition of your blood.

Those with failing kidneys know the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy kidneys. My new book The Revenge of Gaia expands these thoughts, but you still may ask why science took so long to recognise the true nature of the Earth.

I think it is because Darwin's vision was so good and clear that it has taken until now to digest it. In his time, little was known about the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans, and there would have been little reason for him to wonder if organisms changed their environment as well as adapting to it.

Had it been known then that life and the environment are closely coupled, Darwin would have seen that evolution involved not just the organisms, but the whole planetary surface. We might then have looked upon the Earth as if it were alive, and known that we cannot pollute the air or use the Earth's skin - its forest and ocean ecosystems - as a mere source of products to feed ourselves and furnish our homes.

We would have felt instinctively that those ecosystems must be left untouched because they were part of the living Earth. So what should we do? First, we have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act; and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can. Civilisation is energy-intensive and we cannot turn it off without crashing, so we need the security of a powered descent. On these British Isles, we are used to thinking of all humanity and not just ourselves; environmental change is global, but we have to deal with the consequences here in the UK.

Unfortunately our nation is now so urbanised as to be like a large city and we have only a small acreage of agriculture and forestry. We are dependent on the trading world for sustenance; climate change will deny us regular supplies of food and fuel from overseas. We could grow enough to feed ourselves on the diet of the Second World War, but the notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be the site of wind farms, is ludicrous. We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions.

The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate. Perhaps the saddest thing is that Gaia will lose as much or more than we do.

Trump may pull US out of Paris agreement within two weeks « JoNova

Not only will wildlife and whole ecosystems go extinct, but in human civilisation the planet has a precious resource. We are not merely a disease; we are, through our intelligence and communication, the nervous system of the planet. Through us, Gaia has seen herself from space, and begins to know her place in the universe. We should be the heart and mind of the Earth, not its malady. So let us be brave and cease thinking of human needs and rights alone, and see that we have harmed the living Earth and need to make our peace with Gaia.

We must do it while we are still strong enough to negotiate, and not a broken rabble led by brutal war lords. Most of all, we should remember that we are a part of it, and it is indeed our home. The writer is an independent environmental scientist and Fellow of the Royal Society. A task we would soon find impossible - and something before we treated Gaia so badly, she had freely done for.

Viridian Note Broken Rabble, Brutal Warlords Key concepts: James Lovelock, predictions of imminent climatic doom Attention Conservation Notice: James Lovelock is in his mids, so won't live to see any of this utter mayhem he's prophesying. I'm all for colorful, effective pop science writing, but "Gaia" doesn't "make" any person into any kind of planetary anything, much less a planetary doctor or young female cop. Okay, this part I'm buying. Animals don't make British scientists into planetary physicians. Why don't we just say that "Gaia has made us into a suicide belt and blown herself up?

What happens to that 40 per cent area of fertility when we humans are 90 percent dead? I don't want to cavil here, but if smoke is all that's needed to keep us from dwindling off like endangered polar penguins, what's wrong with a brisk little nuclear exchange? As I recall from 'nuclear winter theory,' those make plenty of nice new fresh smoke. Unlike Gaia, who's sitting there with the Three Fates weaving those feedback loops.

Wait, I digress. A task we would soon find impossible — and something before we treated Gaia so badly, she had freely done for us. If you don't count those occasional ice ages and the annihilating meteor strikes. Well, okay, but what if Gaia gave me a lousy kidney? I mean, some of us are born that way. Maybe Darwin should have written in a rather more metaphorical, anthropomorphic, mystical fashion. We might then have looked upon the Earth as if it were alive, and known that we cannot pollute the air or use the Earth's skin — its forest and ocean ecosystems — as a mere source of products to feed ourselves and furnish our homes.

Maybe, but I've noticed that when people lack shelter and food, 'instinctive feelings' are the first things they jettison. Die in large numbers from the grim consequences of our obscurantist inattention to physical reality. On these British Isles, Hey, speak for yourself, perfidious foreigner we are used to thinking of all humanity and not just ourselves; environmental change is global, but we have to deal with the consequences here in the UK.

I'm all for a tidy, eco-shipshape UK, but I question whether that would do much about a shift in the North Atlantic currents. If environmental change is global, even localities have to deal with global consequences, not local ones. I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to work. If there's no food anywhere, then everybody dies in short order. If there's food, but it's too difficult or expensive to ship, then every locality who doesn't produce a local agricultural surplus dies, not just Britain. If we entered a period of mass global famine, we would die off hugely and suddenly, in that thoughtful way that Gaia culls lemmings and deer herds.

In a matter of a few years the survivors would be in a nigh-empty global wilderness. It might be stormy, but the emission problem would be history. Wow but the notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be the site of wind farms, is ludicrous. Aren't British wind farms largely offshore? Who's shipping food to China? If Lovelock were Chinese he would have written an article where China starves horribly as America, Britain and India all chuckle and play pinochle. On the plus side, Gaia won't pen any editorials about that.

We are not merely a disease; hey, speak for yourself, planetary physician we are, through our intelligence and communication, the nervous system of the planet. And then, through us, her nervous system, Gaia went into the garage, turned on the engine and died of the fumes. If we're heart and mind, plus nerves and damaged kidneys to boot, Gaia's got very few organs left. Speaking of broken rabble led by brutal war lords, I'm moving to Belgrade in a couple of days. It was calamitous for years, but nowadays I kinda like it there. After some days' consideration, I've come to this conclusion about it.

I don't think humanity has the capacity to put "Gaia" into a , year "coma. We don't have the capacity to expand industrial development flat-out while being hammered by global climate change and three out of four apocalyptic horsemen. We won't need Gaia's Revenge to do us in — by the time Gaia was good and ready, we'd be doin' a heck of a job eliminating ourselves.

As much as the Gaia concept helped to spur the consideration of the planet as a system of systems, I must admit to a great deal of sympathy for Bruce's take. Lovelock was once a highly-regarded environmental scientist, but little of that shows in this essay. Instead, he joins the list of apocaphiles, strenuously denying that humans can do anything else but wallow in their own filth and destroy the planet or, as he describes it, put Gaia into a "morbid fever" for , years.

He expresses great dismay that we've come to this state, but offers neither solutions nor solace, choosing instead to detail some of the awful ways that billions of us will die. I really dislike apocaphilia. Apocaphiles tell us that our fate is pre-determined, and that any attempt to avoid it is doomed to failure. They're not simply defeatist, they're positively offended by any suggestion that we might figure out a way to avoid disaster. People who believe that we'll muddle through are accused of having their "heads in the ground;" people who try to change our behavior are derided as "unrealistic;" and people who look for tool-based solutions are castigated for trying for a "techno-fix.

There's a distinctly Calvinist flavor to apocaphiles, as they revel in laying out the doom we face because of our own sins, be they environmental, sociological or technological. Ironically, the apocaphile refuses to admit to any human ability to avoid this fate -- we can bring it about, but we can't prevent it, either because the time to do so has long past i. I dislike apocaphilia because I believe that deeds can make a difference. I also dislike apocaphilia because it presumes to predict the future.

The truth is, we simply cannot know if we are, in fact, doomed. We may be -- but there's a damn good chance that we aren't, at least if we make an effort to change global conditions. And that, ultimately, is what makes me so irritated at doomsayers: the denial of our ability to make a difference. Tell people over and over that there's nothing that they can do, and eventually they'll start to believe you, making the negative outcome inevitable. I would much rather try to change things for the better and fail than to lie back and just let the world collapse around me.

Lovelock tells us that billions of us will die, that it's too late to stop the end of the world. I say that such an outcome is a choice, one that we need not make. Australia urged to lead the way in climate change revolution Jan 25, Australia is at the sharp end of the devastating impact of climate change and must urgently undergo an energy revolution if it is to survive, according to eminent scientist, author and winner of the nation's top award, Tim Flannery. Flannery, who was named Australian of the Year marking the country's national day on January 26, believes that if ever a textbook example of the impact of global warming was needed, Australia provides it.

Bushfires have raged for weeks in the country's alpine regions, water reserves in the major cities are drying up while a once-in-a-century drought has ravaged farming land, cutting into the nation's economic output. There is nowhere else that is getting the hammering that we are getting at the moment," Flannery told AFP in an interview.

Spotting Ripples and Trends in the Middle East

We could. We could mandate we are going to have electricity rationing, we are going to close things down, we are going to build a new infrastructure as quick as we can. There are a lot of ways to make electricity. Burning coal is just one of the more antique and stupid ways of doing it. We've got solar energy , we've got wind, we've got geothermal.

This has resulted in the melting of the polar ice-caps, rising sea levels and the extinction of some species -- incontrovertible evidence that mankind's pollution is heating up the earth, he said. So it's very easy to pollute. The zoologist, biologist, explorer, conservationist and writer, who rose to prominence following the publication of the ecological history of Australasia "The Future Eaters," believes the solution for this country lies in harnessing the heat contained in the earth's crust.

Geothermal energy is already used in Iceland, North America and New Zealand, and Flannery believes Australia has the best geothermal resource in the world in the Cooper Basin in the South Australian desert. It will provide enough electricity to run the entire Australian economy for years," he said. We need a government to admit that it was wrong in ignoring this issue for so long and get on with a new vision," he said. It's not what Prime Minister John Howard says or what the current account balance in the Australian economy is -- it's the one held by the atmosphere, the greenhouse gases held by the atmosphere, and that's the one we all need to keep our eye on.

We all underestimated the power of the greenhouse gases. What that would mean is that there's barely a functioning port facility on the planet. People would be spending trillions just trying to keep their cities going. You've got refugees on a scale that is unimaginable. The stresses on peace would be enormous. That's just projecting what we've seen so far. That's just saying if we continue as we are, that's where we will end up. His voice joins growing calls from around the world for a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas pollution and equally dire visions of the future.

But while the amount of greenhouses gases already in the atmosphere is enough to cause disaster, Flannery believes this is no reason for inaction. We've got to keep fighting against that. Thanks indeed for this sober and thoughtful analysis. It's clear that governments and societies which are not the same think - thank you, David Cameron will sometime spend on things they think will reduce the risk of big hazards. A Lohr points out, "In the late s American military spending reached as high as 10 percent of the gross domestic product and averaged about 4 percent, far higher than in any previous peacetime era.

A Soviet nuclear attack was a danger but hardly a certainty, just as the predicted catastrophes from global warming are threats but not certainties. Climate change is perceived as a much more remote, and lesser threat than nuclear war was in the s and 60s. It may be that that perception is wrong. And the possibility of "runaway" climate change is not, as far as I know, something that serious scientists dismiss completely this would necessarily be as bad as nuclear war, just that it could be very bad.

I'm not suggesting one should try and create a "duck and cover" hysteria about global warming. I am suggesting we need to recalibrate our understanding of respective risks. Here's a further thought. As you say, in Britain and other rich industrialised countries we are willing to spend disproportionate sums on immediate near term problems. You give the good example of health care in the last few days of life. So what if societies such as ours started to place greater value on the near term impacts of climate change for example, the likely loss of tropical coral reefs at less than 2C global average temperature rise?

I feel out of my depth using a term like "the construction of value", but isn't that what we are talking about? Those concerned with local and global social and environmental justice may seek to reshape values so that more people cherish such things yes, even in our preferences a little more with respect to what we believe to be our own near term utility. So to your final point: "perhaps a human rights or pure justice lens would be better". Well yes! The comparison may be a tendentious, but imagine a political economist of the s looking at the economic case for and against the abolition of slavery.

That would provide useful data, but it would only take him so far. The battle in that case was political. Also, this time the people on the receiving end may have other ways of expressing their grievances or otherwise making themselves felt - through, for example, large scale migration from West Africa to Europe. Reading it back, this comment comes across as impossibly idealistic. As Jonathan Glover points out in his extraordinary book "Humanity: a Moral History of the 20th Century", we have hardly begun to tackle the social psychology and practical ethics of warfare, still less issues such as environmental protection.

But as he is flavour of the week, let's cite Barack Obama - let us have the audacity to hope. My colleagues have responded in characteristically high-minded fashion by suggesting the following link: Futerra's Stern Review Smack 'Em Use the weighty Stern Review to thwack prominent sceptics Nice game, but I got a lousy score. In terms of action on climate change, I think that considerations of our preferences is not morally appropriate in a similar way the they are not appropriate in a court. So the only question is whether overall we bequeath future generations a world that is at least as good as the one we got or better duty to improve world during generational tenure?

I would then link this with setting up an EU world later? This involves a major political statement that CC is about justice for future generations. In terms of organisation funding, powers, capacities etc, my initial thoughts are: - should have independant income to ensure political independance from current generation top slice auction of EU ETS allowances? It alone should be responsible for setting the long-term target which will effect future generations, its central mandate. It could be in the form of setting the next cap but one, which still provides some flexibility to governments but influences the broad direction and helps make the intergenerational trade-off explicit.

UN climate report will shock the world -chairman says By Robert Benjamin Robert Benjamin A forthcoming UN report on climate change will provide the most credible evidence yet of a human link to global warming and hopefully shock Tide Coming In? Credit to the Globe for a big section on climate change in today's paper. I am skeptical that the level of attention climate change has received recently will last, but I am encouraged that there seems to be slow progress towards the kind of public desire for action that will force the politicians to stop stalling.

The most amusing part of the Globe's coverage had to be Margaret Wente's frantic rearguard action. The Globe obviously feels that writing about the same topic over and over again and always being wrong means that you should get a 4-page column to write even more on the topic. Or maybe the Globe editors just realize that the best way to convince those left on the fence to get moving is to give them Wente and have them realize that this is the voice of doing nothing. Anyway, much like any person who gets involved in a tug-of-war with reality, Wente is losing ground. Consider her position on climate change scientists in her column giving a platform for climate change skeptic Steve McIntyre written less than one year ago : "Unlike almost everyone else in the highly charged climate-change debate, Mr.

McIntyre has nothing personal at stake. He doesn't need to advance his career or get research grants. Don't most scientists still believe in the perils of man-made global warming? But now see what Wente2. Their message is religious, not rational. But I've also spoken to enough brainy scientists to conclude that human activity is affecting the climate and that global warming is for real.

All believe that man-made climate change is a serious issue that demands action. What seems more likely is that Wente, in her status-quo fortified city, has now conceded that the orcs aka environmentalists, aka reality have overrun the outer walls which insisted that the science was all wrong, and has now called her rhetorical troops to fall back to the inner walls, where she has to accept what the scientists are saying, but can still deride the dirty hippie environmentalists extremists!!

Anyway, I have to admire her chutzpah. If I had spent the last few years writing column after column for a national audience about how climate change was no big deal and we should do nothing, and now I had to write a column basically saying the opposite, I might feel embarrassed, or feel a need to apologize to my readers for my error, or to the planet for the costs of any inaction I helped cause or to all the people I'd mocked along the way who turned out to be right all along, but not Wente.

Wente goes right on mocking and attacking all the same people, smoothly transitioning from arguing that we shouldn't do anything, to arguing that we might do too much or take action too soon, from arguing that the people calling for action are wrong to arguing that, OK, they were right, but they are way too shrill about it. I also like the way Wente titles her column "A Questionable Truth", says at the end that much of what Gore says is "dubious or just plain wrong", and says in the middle of her article that "all these experts are highly critical of An Inconvenient Truth" but somehow, in a word article, seems not to have hardly made mention of any specific things in Gore's film that are factually inaccurate.

But all we get is one measly paragraph, "Prof. Wunsch, the ocean-currents expert, says that despite what Mr. Gore asserts, there is no chance whatsoever that the Gulf Stream will slow down or stop. Nor did Hurricane Katrina have any link with global warming, nor do this winter's storms and other strange weather. The final, perhaps saddest piece of the article is this: "At this point, most people say: Well, obviously we've got to start cutting greenhouse-gas emissions as fast as possible.

Surely that's the way to make a difference. This is one of the most common misunderstandings in the global-warming debate. After all, they grow so slowly, what's the point? Anyway, a year ago Wente's article might have made me angry, but today it just made me laugh. Wente is not quite like King Canute trying to command the tide not to come in. She is more like someone who stood trying to command the tide not to come in, and then when she felt the water coming up over her knees, retreated a few feet towards shore, and stood pretending she had never been standing anywhere else, and resumed her efforts.

At some point, you'd think that just giving up on the SUV would be easier than writing all these silly columns. It's fun to make fun of Wente, but this is a serious issue, and it's good to see it starting to get some serious attention, and it's also good to see that most Canadians have seen through the smokescreen of 'skepticism' that the media has created. Next up, serious government action. On a blog where i posted some comments and link to this blog, i received this polite but strong reply: "Sir, I am asking you to change your message or stop repeating this one.