Now free of most obligations and ambitions I can look towards the next ones. My intuition is showing itself to be more and more reliable so following that now and have the routine to explain to skeptics I am following something I can't yet demonstrate but it's as if I'm picking it up remotely (which is probably the case) without the need to understand the workings.
For instance today I tracked down two links about global warming where everything I'd said was agreed with. Nothing new there you say, but one was from the head of East Anglia's CRU in 2007, and the other direct from the IPCC. To summarise the two points. The first was about 'Post-normal science', where the fear of global warming was so great they had to act without proof just in case. That's dangerous stuff in itself but the IPCC statement then pisses over the flames totally by saying "The worst case temperature scenario is that in 100 years the developing world will be over 8 times better off than they would otherwise at over 9 times better off". It goes on to say that the actual problems faced would be exactly the same weather we have now but in different places, and there would be many benefits as well. Conversely all attempts to reduce CO2 will guarantee to make us worse off so this non-normal science or whatever they call it (I'd say 'non-honest') is actually trying to prevent, er, well, nothing, with STEALING OUR MONEY. Great deal, and now they do actually admit it so (as it's not a crime if the laws have been changed to allow it) I don't have to convince anyone, they've told you all. So with the CRU admitting truth is second to policy (their exact words), while the IPCC in their little world slip out the scenario the CRU are trying to prevent is a long chain of er, benefits, and er, more weather in different places to where it is now and sometimes more frequent, that is if they can measure it and then pin any of it down to us and not natural increases etc, the bottom line being "Our money is being extracted to prevent an unprovable and unproven future scenario which the worst computer model possibility in 100 years shows that, er, nothing is going to change besides a slight possible lowering of benefits compared to otherwise"
Now that's a deal every country has either taken on board already or working to pass through their parliaments, while the twinned organisations driving this machinery have actually said straight out (ie not me or some poor scientists accused of being insane by their opponents who want to keep their slices of the cake) there's not a problem and any changes we can see can't be proved to be relevant. I no longer need to try and source anything, I just say the purpose of green taxes is to, er, collect taxes, that's it. If they need the money that badly then just say so, don't make up a whole megillah around it to divide and rule while the people too clever to fall for it are fighting with the unfortunate majority who still think whatever our rulers tell us must be true, why would they lie? I hear this every time it's on the radio or internet, as if politicians are above theft. For fuck's sake, they probably invented it!