Feeding the doubt and worsening the dilemma

Life at either end of any spectrum is mostly untenable.

Life at either end of 
most any specrrum can
 be untenable.

Contentment, serenity, ease, happiness and reward are all to be found mostly near the heart of that span, with the discomfit worsening as one reaches the realms of the malcontent.
Although that underlines and reinforces populism, it doesn’t necessarily mean the other, who might be simply a protestor or a mischief maker, is mistaken in their beliefs.
They are, in the minds of some, iconoclasts; therefore being people who challenge traditional beliefs, values and customs and in disturbing populism they are frequently forced to the extremes of the spectrum.
Having listened to many debates about climate change, it is one of those conversations that almost immediately dumps people at the extremes of the spectrum – to participate you are forced to those extremes declaring yourself a believer or a skeptic for no-one, it seems, can logically, and comfortably, walk the middle ground.
That became clear recently when listening to ProfessorGeoffrey Blainey talk in Shepparton about climate change, its impact nationally and on the Goulburn Valley in particular.
The professor had a wonderful historical argument, that being as it should for he is a noted Australian historian, but that view, as sound as it was, overlooked modern science that illustrates, conclusively, the existence of significant changes to the earth’s climate.
It was interesting to sit in the Harder Auditorium at Shepparton’s TAFE College and hear the John Furphy Foundation Memorial Lecture and almost feel the near 160 strong audience warming to the thought that we need to apply more than simple raw science to the climate change conversation.
For too long it seemed people had been forced to the extremes of the debate and driven into that untenable position of either being for or against climate change.
In his friendly and knowledgeable way, Prof Blainey allowed people to stroll, intellectually and metaphorically at least, in the comforting middle ground, some distance from those untenable extremes.
Personally, the professor’s views were somewhat discomforting as he cast some doubt on the modern reasons for climate change and encouraged those in the audience to give even more weight to historical arguments.
Being a thinker of particular clout in our national community, his views that brought doubt to the modern understanding of climate change would be seized upon by skeptics and used to further leverage their argument that the climate debate it a fraud – it is not, and to interpret the eminent man’s views that way would do him disservice, or maybe it wouldn’t?
Skeptics thrive on such doubt and the subsequent confusion they sow further delays the action this human induced dilemma demands.

Furphy 'specialist' to speak at 2012 John Furphy Memorial Lecture

A fellow who is not a Furphy, but is considered a Furphy specialist will speak at next year’s annual John Furphy Memorial Lecture.

Professor Geoffrey Blainey
spoke at Wednesday night's
John Furphy Memorial
Lecture in Shepparton.

An Emeritus Professor of English at La Trobe University, John Barnes, will deliver the eighth annual oration on September 13, exactly 100 years, to the day, that noted author Joseph Furphy died.
The great, great grandson of John Furphy, Adam Furphy announced details of the 2012 lecture after Professor Geoffrey Blainey had spoken at Wednesday night’s memorial lecture.
Adam, along with being the Managing Director of J. Furphy and Sons in Shepparton, is the chairman of the regional advisory board for the Shepparton campus of La Trobe University.
The Harder Auditorium at Shepparton’s TAFE College seats 160 people and was nearly full for Wednesday night’s lecture.
Prof Blainey, who obviously has a deep and broad understanding of Australian history, encouraged people to consider that history fully before blandly accepting many of the present arguments about climate change.
He pointed to changes in the world’s climate that had resulted in significant alterations to Australia’s coastline, including the creation of Bass Strait and the appearance of Tasmania as an island, which were all events that Aborigines of the day had learned to live with.

A discussion initiated, a discussion continued, but never finished

A discussion that began in August in the columns of this paper continued recently in the office of the City of Greater Shepparton’s mayor, Cr Geoff Dobson.

The mayor of the City of Greater
 Shepparton council,
 Cr Geoff Dobson.

The mayor, an amiable fellow near the end of his second term in that role, which, he says, will be his last, seemed remote from the political intrigue often associated with such roles.
Discussion canvassed many ideas, chiefly; however, those examined many times, and particularly in August, in this column.
The mayor appreciated considered views and both he and I wondered why those with an interest in the future wellbeing of our city did not take the time to make an appointment to talk with the mayor, whoever he or she might be.
People with a view about how the city can, or should, behave and respond to its community responsibilities should, it was discussed, formally talk with the council, rather than simply expand on their views among friends.
Without individual and thoughtful input from ratepayers, as opposed the emotional recklessness of groups, the council, in Shepparton’s case just seven people, is forced to operate in an incestuous vacuum, or at least a process driven by personal ideas or simple anecdotal opinions of others.
The connection between community wellbeing and so its accessibility of food turned talk to community gardens; public transit and its ever increasing need was discussed; talk shifted, at one point, to the need of increased residential density in the city, that being shop-top residences as an example; and, the mayor having another appointment, our cordial conversation ended.
The mayor encouraged me to consider initiating a group that was not (these are my words) argumentative, confrontational or critical, rather simply people who thoughtfully considered the city’s future and wellbeing, and then a few times a year presented its findings to the council.
Leaving the meeting, it soon became obvious that the “elephant in the room” had been overlooked.
Not even discussed and so inadvertently ignored had been the question of energy, a question so large, which, if answered successfully, holds the key to the future of Greater Shepparton.
Energy, in all its facets, is the essence of the Goulburn Valley, without which Greater Shepparton would be substantially different for what we know and enjoy today, even with an abundance of water.
Some groups, conscious of its importance, have taken steps to address impending energy crises with ideas that have been enthusiastically embraced.
That enthusiasm, in this case solar energy, illustrates that the community is often intellectually and physically ahead of local, State and Federal Governments.
That trio, however, is frequently hedged in by democracy, which is a lovely idea in principle, but works best for those with the loudest or most persistent voice.

Tackling, safely, the most complex of difficult things - driving

Driving a car is among the most complex of things a human can do.

The activity is portrayed as simple, but it takes our skills to their limit; stretching our motor and spatial skills, planning ability, timing, pushing our senses of hearing, smell, sight and touch, interrogating our feeling for things mechanical, and to further the complexity of the task, a driver needs an understanding of the weather and how it affects the car’s dynamics.
Most are familiar with driving to the extent that it becomes almost instinctual, a sort of reptilian old brain activity that lumps, wrongly, that incredibly complex task in with breathing and other unconscious tasks of simply staying alive.
For some, driving is like breathing, but for others their breathing often becomes somewhat laboured and irregular, an irregularity that can result in serious accidents or death.
Although driving is complex and difficult, there is one task that is strikingly simple, easy and requires little forethought or planning and if adhered to can make driving safer for all road users.
Next to sitting behind the wheel, using the car’s turning indicators is nothing more than a flick of the finger - one flick, at the appropriate time and all other nearby road users are aware of your intentions.
It does, however, put the driver under some pressure, for although it is the simplest of tasks, it requires forethought, planning, the most minor of physical effort and, critically, consideration for others.
As a cyclist there are just a couple of things I want from fellow road users, beyond not killing me - early and consistent use of turning indicators and, critically, eye contact.
Many drivers are courteous and that is appreciated, but some assume ownership of the road and within that they frequently take privileges, rights that often see them exceed existing road rules.
Those drivers see the road rules as mandatory for everyone else, but simply guidelines for them only to be followed when it’s convenient.
Some cyclists behave in similar ways and so they, along with other road users, also need to be aware that behaviour based on the reptilian brain, instinct and raw survival is not appropriate for rule-based road sharing.
Motor cars, according to columnist with Great Britain’s Guardian, GeorgeMonbiot, are isolationist and individualistic, two things that are diametrically opposed to common and safe road use.
Pedestrians rarely have collisions and that can be explained in many ways, but the principle reason is the courtesy we extend to our fellows.
Also, motor cars, because of what they are, effectively a metal cocoon, isolate us from our larger environment and psychologically insulate people from the almost certain tragedies that haunt motorists.