You are falling me in the back by continuing not to see that no single scientist with a name contradicts my maximally easy-to-falsify (if false) Telemach theorem.

A world press that is unable to see this is no world press but an element of a planetocidal conspiracy. And you now drift towards its center at a time when every minute counts.

Please become objective again as I know you can be. Or if you still are sure I am behaving in the wrong way by turning to SCUN and UNGA for lack of time, tell me a better short-term (not long-term where I would not contradict you) strategy.

Is it so often that the last and highest gremium of the planet is being appealed to in the name of every single human being in plain sunlight? Is the press there to conceal what a child sees?

Please, become a bridge again, Simnon and Garfinkle style.

The point is that you are not presenting anything persuasive to such people as you need to impress which will get them to listen to you, because they are not party to your thinking on the matter, to any degree at all, and therefore cannot join you in your conclusion that time is short.

You may be used to being taken seriously by your colleagues and your friends who are aware of and understand your achievements, but it is strangers to whom you must apply for consideration. It is on that level that I am talking, not on whether you are an authority among your peers.

It is always difficult for those whose expertise is hidden from journalists and the leaders of a society, and perhaps above many of those who work in the same field, especially if they are trying to change a world view which is accepted by most people as a given.

Sadly it seems to me that the basis of your appeal has to be emotional, and the pitfalls are emotional too, a very difficult position for a man of extreme thoughtfulness to be in.

As far as I know the only solution is very great oratory which first reflects the misguided prejudices of the audience and then is able to change their conclusion to a new perspective.

Even President Obama seems to be failing in this respect.

Again, they first have to take you seriously. If none of them do, then none of them will publicly assess and reply to your position, even if they think it wrong. If they think it right, they will take it seriously by definition, and respond to it. If they think it wrong, however, they might think that it is wrong because EITHER a) you are not to be taken seriously OR b) that it is wrong in their judgment after they have taken you seriously enough to examine it carefully.

a) and b) are two separate possibilities either of which may account for the lack of anyone stepping up to state that in their judgment you are theoretically unjustified in your conviction that the world is in danger to an extreme degree.

Unfortunately you keep ignoring a), which actually to many observers suggests a).

Statements such as your complaint is being taken seriously by the UN Security Council and being discussed within that group during its meetings or even by its staff which do not have any evidence behind them also suggest a) to observers.

The important thing is for you to avoid a), as I have suggested to you, since it is a priority for you if you are to proceed on the official level with your application requesting that your thinking on this infinitely important topic (the future of humanity and the planet) be entertained by people within major governments or such high level global organizations.

The issue is one of basic human nature, which always underlies success in politics. These people take themselves very seriously and you have to give them very solid ground under their feet before they will venture onto the ground you are asking them to walk.

PassingBy I hope that answers your kind enquiry, also.

I appreciate your helpful words. If we had much time left, this would be a good strategy indeed and it would — perhaps — even bring the issue before the SCUN eventually

But now the issue IS before the SCUN.

So the world and I need your advice how to get this body to make a decision that will prove responsible in retrospect.

I believe the fact that I am serious has transpired. And that no single scientist on the planet says “I can prove Telemach wrong.”

Don’t you think the fact that I have not a single open adversary in science is a living proof that my request for a double check cannot be ignored any longer?

I only beg for the benefit of the doubt. Not doubt in CERN: doubt in me. That is the only risk that the whole planet is shrinking away from — a nothing.

To refuse giving a nothing is unprecedented in history. Or is it not?

Take care,
Otto

“than the jokes” not “that the jokes”, sorry