Climate Porn - Shining Spotlight on Climate Change Scaremongering

Polar Bear populations are growing!!!

2007-05-04T14:46:00.000+10:00

When will the Global Warming lies finally become impossible to sustain? Surely we have to be getting close...

Latest news from Canada. We all know that the Polar Bears, the poster animals of Global Warming, are in imminent danger, right? Well, not according to scientists that study them. In fact the ongoing study from Canada found that their numbers have actually increased from 850 in mid-1980's to 2100!!! The animal is so threatened that it's more than doubled it's numbers in 20 years. Some crisis, I tell you.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p13s01-wogi.html

The Sinful Habits of Eco-preachers

2007-04-03T14:56:00.000+10:00

Just as Al Gore picks up the Oscar for his sci-fi mockumentary "Inconvenient Truth" we learn that his personal energy consumption is 20 times higher than average. He uses 2 times more electricity each month than the average American family uses in one year!

Gore maintains he offsets his emissions through buying carbon credits from the company run by non other than Al Gore himself! What a nice little spinner.

Prince Charles not to be outdone booked the entire first and second class on the jet plane to fly to New York to accept a green prize from Al Gore.

Perhaps the most telling quote comes from Laurie Davis one of the producers of Inconvenient Truth. When asked about her apparent hypocrisy of demanding we all live less but still flying her private jet on holidays, she said:
"Yes, I take a private plane on holiday a couple of times a year." But it's OK because: "I feel horribly guilty about it."

Most rational people have to conclude that global warming is a farce, an ideology pushed upon us by those that preach the end of the world is nigh while jetting around, accepting prizes and making money like they will live forever. It is faith whose preachers demand the world makes sacrifices that they can't and won't make themselves.

Andrew Bolt has more.

Global Warming: The Need for Control

2007-04-03T14:55:00.001+10:00

I have been musing about the issue of Global Warming for a while now. I am a self-confessed sceptic. I do not deny the fact of global warming, it is quite certain that the climate showed a slight upward trend of about 0.6C in the last 100 years or so. In the same time CO2 emissions have increased. In the absence of better explanation most scientists have linked the two. So far I have not seen any conclusive proof that higher CO2 levels do in fact cause higher temperatures. Most predictions of future calamities come from computer models that are only as good as the assumptions that go into them. Moreover, the sheer range of the future temperature predictions such as IPCC's 1.8 - 6.4 over the next 100 years makes these predictions almost useless in any meaningful analytic sense.

Leaving the science out of the equation for a moment, why do so many people embrace GW despite the large uncertainties that exist? I believe one explanation is our need for control. In the days of old when traditional religions ruled, we would've simply concluded that God is warming up the planet and would've asserted control by prayer. Oh heavenly Father, let us pray for the globe to cool... In a modern secular society where efficiency of prayer has been comprehensively discredited we need to assert control by other means and rituals. We insist our politicians must sign inter-planetary CO2 bans no matter how futile; we install solar panels, wind turbines, buy carbon offsets and convince ourselves that small things can make a real difference. One such exercise in futility was last weekends Earth hour in Sydney. Launched with much fanfare by environmentalists and Green politicians, Earth Hour's organisers have signed up around 2000 businesses and numerous individuals to turn off their lights for one hour last Saturday night to help avert climate change. The practical result of this gesture was to cut as many greenhouse gasses as generated by just two return flights from Sydney to London... As useless as it gets. British GW preacher Sir Nicholas Stern currently touring Australia could've achieved half of such cut by simply staying at home.

People want to believe that by showing green virtue they can bring about a stable climate and avert the coming catastrophe. This is clearly wishful thinking. Our climate is in constant flux. It has changed over millennia and will continue to do so. Even ambitious agreements such as Kyoto will at best achieve 0.07 C reductions in global temperature by 2050, that's if all that we know about CO2 is absolutely correct. It is barely plausible that we can control the climate in a way that would deliver the sort of climate we desire. Still, accepting that we have no impact on climate leaves us in the mercy of Nature (Gods) and makes us feel venerable. We need to be in the driver's seat. Doesn't matter how flawed and preposterous the sheer suggestion that we can control the climate is, it is still better than idea of being at the climate's mercy. We need to pray...

The Great Global Warming Swindle

2007-04-03T14:54:00.001+10:00

On Thursday 8 March at 9pm GMT British Channel 4 will screen a new controversial documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle". The film's main argument is simple - Global Warming has become such powerful political force that alternative views and explanations are suppressed.

The film hears from a number of prominent scientists that dispute the link between CO2 and climate. It also looks at the impacts of CO2 restrictions on the world's poorest people. This wonderful quote comes from James Shikwati, Kenyan director of the Inter Region Economic Network:
"The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy, but for us we are still at the stage of survival.I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway network, it might work, maybe, to power a small transistor radio."

I admire Channel 4 for having the guts to commission such bold documentary. I have no doubt that it will be smeared by the AGW proponents. Despite the repetitive cries of debate being over, the real debate on Global Warming is just beginning. Channel 4's film must be applauded for questioning the dogma.

More from Channel 4's official website.

Cosmic Connection

2007-04-03T14:52:00.000+10:00

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

Step One: Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two: As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three: No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

However after carefully looking at the evidence Nir no longer believes that CO2 is to blame for current warming.

Nir believes that cosmic rays provide a more plausible explanation. In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

Cosmic ray theory is gaining some traction since Danish National Space Center experimentally proved that cosmic rays create cloud nuclei and therefore influence the climate by altering the number of low altitude clouds (current climate models cannot model cloud behavior). The theory is taken seriously enough for CERN to conduct their own experiment similar to Danish. The results will be out in the first part of the year.

The Solar System is Warming

2007-04-03T14:48:00.001+10:00

Strange things have been noticed by the astronomers. Some of the planets in the Solar System are undergoing global warming.

Mars is warming: here and here

So is Jupiter

And so is Pluto: here and here.

Now this can be the proof that recent warming on Earth is caused not by human CO2 emissions but by some mechanism that we currently don't understand. Cosmic Ray theory experimentally proven by Danish Space Center and soon to be tested by CERN is one plausible explanation:

Alternatively, if you take the current consensus position, you have to conclude that the problem is much worst than first thought and our SUV's are warming up the Solar System!!!

The Church of Global Warming and Al the Latter-Day Saint

2007-04-03T14:47:00.000+10:00

The religious nature of environmentalism is once again in the spotlight thanks to Al Gore's Oscar win. This year's Oscars were the first "green Oscars". It was undoubtedly a farce themed around sin and search for redemption. How else can we describe the spectacle of Gargantuan consumers of energy with their Hollywood mansions, limousines and private jets basking in the warm glow of Al's green halo and feeling superior to the great unwashed for being driven a couple of meters to the red carpet in Priuses (or is it Priusae?). The theme of environmental redemption was further highlighted by every guest receiving one years worth of carbon offsets in their Oscar goody bag. How easy, they can now sin for the whole year guilt free!

After the Oscars Al Gore became a centre of big controversy after it was revealed that his electricity consumption was 20 times higher than the national average. But the Big Man explained it was OK because he purchased carbon credits, as it turned out, from himself. See, there is no need for painful lifestyles adjustments and personal sacrifices as long as you buy a carbon offset. Ergo in the church of environmentalism the energy consumption is a sin and the carbon offsets are the modern form of green indulgence.

Michael Crichton once called environmentalism "the religion of choice for urban atheists a perfect 21st Century re-mapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths". While a lot of environmentalists would find this insulting, Rachel Carson, the mother of modern environmentalism, once wrote that "by destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not". Bruce Crofts of the East Toronto Climate Action Group compared Al Gore to Jesus Christ and said categorically "From my perspective, it is a form of religion. --- The religion for this group is doing something for the environment."

While there is nothing wrong with having religious thoughts and believes, religion must be seen by both believers and non-believers for what it ultimately is - a religion. The problem with so many in the environmental movement is their insistence that environmentalism is not religion but science.

Himalayan glaciers are melting... are they?

2007-02-20T14:07:00.000+11:00

The IPCC is saying that Himalayan glaciers are melting. Put himalaya glacier global warming or himalaya glacier climate change into Google and you will get hundreds of thousands of colourfully-alarming pages. "Millions face glacier catastrophe" says the Observer, "Global Warming Triggers Glacial Lakes Flood Threat" says the UN Chronicle... Take home - we are all fucked!!!

But are we? Enter the real experts that study Himalayan glaciers. Believe it or not, there are only about dozen scientists working on India's 9,575 glaciers.

VK Raina is a leading glaciologist and former ADG Geological Society of India. He disputes the IPCC's consensus position that global warming is melting Himalayan glaciers. Raina points out that only 50 out of India's 9,575 glaciers have been properly studied! Nearly 200 years of data coming from these 50 glaciers have not shown anything abnormal.

Raina's views are echoed by Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology who also maintains that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers studied so far by him.

Read the article here

Geenpeace under threat

2007-02-13T15:13:00.000+11:00

German government has announced its plans to reform taxation laws for charitable organisations. Germany has fairly lax laws when it comes to listing organisation as charity. Special-interest advocacy groups such as Greenpeace can simply list themselves as charities, pay no tax and therefore get a lot more cash for their lobbying activities. Greenpeace's Hamburg office currently uses its tax-free windfall to fund a lot of Greenpeace's programs right around the World. If German taxation regime changes it will pose a threat to Greenpeace internationally.

Let's hope Germany does it. Greenpeace is environmental anti-development, anti-globalisation lobby group, not a charity.

Global Warming Trade-offs

2007-02-13T14:27:00.000+11:00

Public policy is all about trade-offs. Everything comes at a cost. Increased investment in one sector often means reduced investment somewhere else. Fore example increased spending on environment may come form decreasing defense or healthcare spending. Jonah Goldberg asks to be very careful when thinking about trade-offs involved in the policy to combat global warming:

In the history of trade-offs, never has there been a better one than trading a tiny amount of global warming for a massive amount of global prosperity. Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800 percent, by one estimate. How much of that 0.7 degrees can be laid at the feet of that 1,800 percent is unknowable, but let's stipulate that all of the warming was the result of our prosperity and that this warming is in fact indisputably bad (which is hardly obvious). That's still an amazing bargain. Life expectancies in the United States increased from about 47 years to about 77 years. Literacy, medicine, leisure and even, in many respects, the environment have improved mightily over the course of the 20th century, at least in the prosperous West.
....
Given the option of getting another 1,800 percent richer in exchange for another 0.7 degrees warmer, I'd take the heat in a heartbeat.

Would you?

Adaptation is back on the agenda

2007-02-09T09:49:00.000+11:00

For most global warming activists adaptation has been a taboo topic. Al Gore describes it as "kind of laziness, an arrogant faith in our ability to react in time to save our skins". However the reality of global warming dynamics is pushing adaptation back on the agenda. Both Stern report (despite its numerous shortcomings) and IPCC are talking adaptation as a viable option. This article in the Nature makes a strong case for adaptation:

First, there is a timescale mismatch. Whatever actions ultimately lead to the decarbonization of the global energy system, it will be many decades before they have a discernible effect on the climate.

Second, vulnerability to climate-related impacts on society are increasing for reasons that have nothing to do with greenhouse-gas emissions, such as rapid population growth along coasts and in areas with limited water supplies.
This is particularly evident in relation to Katrina disaster. While most debate focused on if Katrina was related to global warming, scientist have long warned of inevitability of Katrina-like disaster.

Finally, those who will suffer the brunt of climate impacts are now demanding that the international response to climate change focus on increasing the resilience of vulnerable societies to damaging climate events that - like Katrina - will occur regardless of efforts to mitigate emissions

I very much liked the tropical diseases example in relation to adaptation vs. mitigation:
For instance, one study found that without taking into account climate change, the global population at risk from malaria would increase by 100% by 2080, whereas the effect of climate change would increase the risk of malaria by at most 7%. Yet tropical disease risk is repeatedly invoked by climate-mitigation advocates as a key reason to curb emissions. In a world where political attention is limited, such distortions reinforce the current neglect of adaptation.

Adaptation has another very important strength. Rich countries currently argue over, commit and ultimately miss CO2 mitigation targets. This process is set to continue for the foreseeable future until the large-scale energy alternatives are developed. On the other hand we already have the technology to build protective walls to stop rising seas, set up water infrastructure, make buildings less prone to damage and keep tropical diseases at bay. Even with the best intentions it is easy to miss the CO2 targets, it will be a lot harder to miss a construction schedule.

WWF Polar Bear Report Nobody Reads

2007-02-06T08:47:00.000+11:00

Here is a great example of planet emergency created by constant lying and repetition. Nearly every person on the planet by now knows that polar bears are in grave danger. If we don't act now they will be all gone, perhaps even in the next 25 years. Scary!

Even WWF is warning that the bears are under grave threat. However if one looks at their own report predictably called "Polar Bears at Risk" such fears are baseless. Have a look at page 9 which gives a table of various bear population. Out of 14 populations for which the trends have been established only 2 are decreasing, the rest are either stable or increasing.

WWF draws it's dire conclusions of the risks based on the sea ice depletion but such conclusions are hypothetical and presently unsupported by observation data.

Another brave soul speaks out against Gore

2007-02-02T12:08:00.000+11:00

More and more people are beginning to challenge Al Gore-style climate hysteria. Professor Bob Giegengack of Penn's Department of Earth and Environmental Science gives sobering assessment of Al Gores doom-preaching documentary "Inconvenient Truth".

"The glossy production is replete with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and appeals to public fear as shamelessly as any other political statement that hopes to unite the public behind a particular ideology."

Then Gore clicks again to dramatic footage of a collapsing polar ice shelf. "That's irresponsible," Gieg says. "What he's doing is no less than the scare tactics used by people like Karl Rove."

Is CO2 driving the climate or is climate driving the CO2?
the professor maintains, these core samples from the polar ice and ocean floor help show that the Earth?s temperature and the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been in lockstep for tens of thousands of years.
...
Of course, that was long before anybody was burning fossil fuels. So Giegengack tells his students they might want to consider that "natural" climatic temperature cycles control carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. That's the crux of his argument with Gore's view of global warming - he says carbon dioxide doesn't control global temperature, and certainly not in a direct, linear way.

And this on the effectiveness of CO2 caps by the developed countries:
"the thing he doesn't mention is that there are 2.4 billion people in India and China who have launched a campaign that will increase their energy consumption by a factor of 10. No matter what we do. If we somehow cut our CO2 emissions in half, you wouldn't be able to measure the difference because of the role played by India and China.

"It's over. If CO2 is the problem, we've already lost."

There is plenty of good science in the article that challenges the global warming dogma. I suspect we will see more and more scientists with integrity speaking out in the future. Hopefully soon we'll see that the Emperor has no clothes...

More debate, please!

2007-01-31T14:21:00.000+11:00

This thoughtful article in the Telegraph by Roger Bootle asks a simple question: How much should we be prepared to pay to stop global warming?

Bootle gives quite honest and sober assessment of the global warming debate using simple common-sense. I found myself in agreement with a lot of his points. Here are just some:

With honourable exceptions, the people who are queuing up to endorse tough measures also tend to be against one, several or all of the following: the market, capitalism, low taxes, a small state, individual freedom, economic growth, globalisation, free trade, inter-dependence, and America.

He also highlights the importance of not giving the environmentalists a blank check. He is quite right to note that the issue goes well beyond making small sacrifices now for the better future.

Precisely because the avoidance of climate change cannot be provided or purchased individually, government intervention is potentially back - and on a huge scale.
...
If this alliance carries the day then the loss of income projected by Stern as a result of unchecked global warming would prove to be chicken feed. We could end up shutting down the engine of our prosperity - and for something which may yet prove to be a chimera.

Bootle doesn't shy form suggesting the things that we can and should do. The things that will be good for the environment but are not incompatible with economic growth.

I have long wondered about energy security. The West's dependence upon oil makes it dependent upon the Middle East and Russia. This dependence is a grave strategic weakness which one day could bring very heavy costs - and not just in money.
Accordingly, steps to substitute other energy sources, or to economise on energy, are to be welcomed. I know that not everyone will agree, but it seems to me that nuclear power is the only serious option - and it could be promoted partly on environmental grounds!

I hope we will see more articles like this in the future. This debate is too important to be drowned out in the campaign of green scaremongering.

Why Global Warming is Probably a Rubbish

2007-01-30T13:31:00.000+11:00

Brilliant little article that explains why global warming is anything but certainty. Well worth a read. The math is quite good too:

Here are some highlights:
Physicists just don't know how to deal with hypercomplex systems like the earth weather. That's why a recent NASA scientist was wildly wrong when he called anthropogenic warming "just basic physics." Basic physics is what you do in the laboratory. If hypercomplex systems were predictable, NASA would have foolproof space shuttles - because they are a lot simpler than the climate. So this is just pseudoscientific twaddle from NASA's vaunted Politically Correct Division.

So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent.

The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of one out of three. How many billions of dollars in Kyoto money are we going to spend on that chance?

Funny how the words theory or hypothesis of global warming are always left out. Somebody once said: "Anything, even a lie if repeated often enough becomes accepted as truth". Global warming is one such truth established by repetition

Spotlight on Stern

2007-01-29T13:48:00.001+11:00

Now that scientists and economists are starting to have a good look at the Stern Review it is becoming clear that it is fatally flawed and only useful as a green lobby propaganda piece.

The recently published "The Stern Review: A Dual Critique" looks at both scientific side of Stern Review as well as economics.

The authors find that Review fails to present an accurate picture of scientific understanding of climate change issues.Stern Review greatly understates the extent of uncertainty as to possible developments, in highly complex systems that are not well understood, over a period of two centuries or more; and its treatment of sources and evidence is persistently selective and biased. Authors conclude that the Review doesn't present accurate picture of scientific understanding of climate change issues, and will only strengthen the ill-informed alarmism about climate change.

When it comes to economics, the authors note that Stern Review systematically and dramatically overstates the costs of climate change. The Review fails to acknowledge the great costs from drastic carbon mitigation programs especially to the world's poor. They also point out that Stern have chosen a very low discounting rate, echoing the earlier Nordhaus' critique.

The authors conclude:
So far from being an authoritative guide to the economics of climate change, the Stern Review is deeply flawed. It does not provide a basis for informed and responsible policies.

Could this be the reason why not even Gordon Brown, the man who commissioned the Review, is willing to follow it's recommendations?

Treat Environmentalism as Religion

2007-01-29T13:48:00.000+11:00

Many of us already suspect that environmentalism is not science based on rational facts but religion based on many myth. This great article in Financial Times confirms this view and urges business leaders to treat environmentalism as they would treat other religions. The author makes some brilliant points that are absolutely spot on:

Environmentalism now fulfils for many people the widespread longing for simple, all-encompassing narratives. Environmentalism offers an alternative account of the natural world to the religious and an alternative anti-capitalist account of the political world to the Marxist. The rise of environmentalism parallels in time and place the decline of religion and of socialism.

Christians look to the Second Coming, Marxists to the collapse of capitalism, with the same mixture of fear and longing.

This explains why environmentalism is preached with religion zeal of the yesteryear's missionaries and most popular amongst the inner city left-wing types.

Environmentalism at first lacked a persuasive Apocalypse myth. The litany of environmental degradation had to confront the manifest fact that many aspects of the environment were steadily improving, with cleaner air, rivers and seashores. The discovery of global warming filled a gap in the canon. That is why environmentalists attach so much importance to the assertion not just that the world is warming up, which is plainly true, but that this warming is our fault, which is less plainly true.

The author is also spot on in assertion that environmentalists are not actually interested in meaningful and rational solutions to global warming choosing to preoccupy themselves instead with meaningless symbolic rituals.

It's official, Environmentalism is Religion!

2007-01-29T13:47:00.000+11:00

As if to confirm my previous post, a number of prominent scientists including the "godfather of Global Warming" James Hansen of NASA, have teamed up with the National Association of Evangelicals to advocate for political action on climate change. They just released a joint statement which stated:

We believe that the protection of life on Earth is a profound moral imperative. It addresses without discrimination the interests of all humanity as well as the value of the non-human world. It requires a new moral awakening to a compelling demand, clearly articulated in Scripture and supported by science, that we must steward the natural world in order to preserve for ourselves and future generations a beautiful, rich, and healthful environment. For many of us, this is a religious obligation, rooted in our sense of gratitude for Creation and reverence for its Creator.

...and so it is official. Environmentalism is a religion. Read more in this PDF release from the group. Hallelujah!!!

I guess this explains why Environmentalists are no more interested in debate and reason than Spanish Inquisition or Jihadis.

Even BBC is onto Stern

2007-01-29T13:46:00.000+11:00

Amazingly for me even BBC is reporting what I have been saying on this forum for a while now - Stern Report is a load of crap!

Here are some of the highlights from the BBC4 Radio 4 program "The Investigation":

The report may have been loved by the politicians and headline writers but when climate scientists and environmental economists read the 670-page review, many said there were serious flaws.

"If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely I would give him an 'F' for fail. There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make."
"Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to impacts."
-Richard Tol, professor at Hamburg and Carnegie Mellon Universities, and is one of the world's leading environmental economists. The Stern Review cites Tol's work 63 times.

"The IPCC is not going to talk about tipping points; it's not going to talk about 5m rises in sea level; it's not going to talk about the next ice age because the Gulf Stream collapses; and it's going to have none of the economics of the Stern Review"
"It's almost as if a credibility gap has emerged between what the British public thinks and what the international science community think."
-Professor Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

I recommend listening to the audio of the program. It sheds light on some of the global warming lies such as how many times Themes barrier is being closed to ward off the rising seas. Surprisingly despite the crap we are fed, it happened less times in the last five years than in five years before that.

It is good to see reason prevailing over hysteria. One question still remains: if global warming is real and so obvious, why do so many of its proponents have to exaggerate and mislead so wildly?

Read or listen here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6295021.stm

Tim Flannery - Australian of the Year

2007-01-29T13:44:00.000+11:00

Tim Flannery the author of the climate doom bestseller "The Weathermakers" has just received the highly publicised Australian of the Year award. He is widely considered to be one of Australia's most famous and brightest scientists. Here are some of his views on population control in Australia. Keep in mind he has two children himself:

Q: What do you think the ideal population of Australia should be ?

Flannery: Well, my personal estimate is that's probably going to lie somewhere between six and 12 million. But the great tragedy for the nation is that we don't know the answer to that question. We've never asked it sensibly. I may be proven to be wrong, but I don't think I'm going to be greatly wrong. The answer may be 20 million, but it's certainly not going to be 200 million.

That's between 8 and 14 million less than now. Let's start the cull now!

Q: How would we control our population?

Flannery: Well, the main and easiest thing to control really is immigration levels because that is what's contributing to the major population growth at the moment. We're below replacement level as far as births go, but we do have a very large number of baby boomers having children which is causing a temporary increase in numbers. But really, in the long term, it's going to be immigration which will cause the big change.

Immigrants out! Proves my point nicely that environmentalism is ultimately an ultra-conservative anti-development movement.

http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/info/q95-19-5.htm

Ahh... the glorious environmentalism! Eugenics, Malthusianism, socialism and primitive utopianism rolled into one. Why should so many people not see the obvious dangers of this stupid and ultimately disastrous ideology is beyond me. Any ideas anyone?

No consensus on tropical cyclones

2006-12-29T00:20:00.000+11:00

Here is the latest release from the from the World Meteorological Organization. Amongs other things it states that:

A consensus of 125 of the world's leading tropical cyclone researchers and forecasters says that no firm link can yet be drawn between human-induced climate change and variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones.

The WMO is one of the parent bodies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://www.wmo.int/web/Press/PR_766_E.doc

PS
Can somebody ask Al Gore to update his power point presentation!

Amazing Admissions about Global Warming

2006-12-22T22:44:00.001+11:00

The annual meeting of American Geophysical Union (AGU) is one of the most important annual events on geophysics calendar. As expected, it is heavily dominated by the global warming. Kevin Varnes,(Kevin's profile here) a PhD in physical oceanography and climatology from Columbia University reports about the change of attitude amongst the climate researchers. He calls it internal backlash. Kevin makes some absolutely fascinating admissions that will come as a surprise to some. This should be required reading for everyone that wants to understand the growing rift between the science of climate change and the public awareness of the issue driven by media, environmentalists and certain politicians. Absolutely enlightening:
http://tinyurl.com/yh3f4s

Global Warming that is not "Global"

2006-12-22T22:44:00.000+11:00

Spencer and Christy have updated their tools to calculate the tropospheric temperatures between 1979 and the present era from their and NASA's satellite data. Interestingly if one looks at the graph there is barely any warming in the last 20 years in the Southern hemisphere (only 0.05 in SH degree compared to 0.128 in the NH).

Should Global Warming be renamed Northern Hemisphere Warming, or should we just drop the term Global Warming all together?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=831

PS The most obvious explanation for this phenomenon is the Urban Heat Island effect. It would be prudent to say that despite the assurances of the pro-GW camp, the temperature records are not sufficiently adjusted for the UHI effect that pollutes the NH data. Since SH is a lot less urbanised, it must produce more accurate data. What the graph shows however, that once the UHI is removed, the warming disappears.

The climate is getting colder while hysteria is running hotter

2006-12-22T22:43:00.001+11:00

According to the most recent data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the year 2006 is set to be
* colder than 2005
* colder than 2004
* colder than 2003
* colder than 2002
* ... and, most obviously, ...
* colder than 1998,

The number of hurricanes in 2006 was below the long-term average. The total number of Atlantic tropical storms was the second lowest number during the last 12 years, after 1997.

http://tinyurl.com/y3saqw

We are all doomed!!!

Stern Warning

2006-12-22T22:43:00.000+11:00

In this article originally published by the Wall Street Journal Bjorn Lomborg patiently dissects the flaws in Stern report. Lomborg clearly shows why Stern Report is only useful as propaganda piece based on the scariest of the scary scenarios and massaging of data. This begs the obvious question: why have so many governments embraced this report as the ultimate truth?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5126

The debate is over?

2006-12-22T22:42:00.000+11:00

Just as we are being told that the science is settled and the proof of global warming is undeniable comes this peace of research. Published in the prestigious Environmental Geology journal and peer-reviewed by scientists from major institutions it identifies the following global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth's climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth's climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/

Steady on there, fella! It is 2006 and the world leading scientist such as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Al Gore cannot be wrong! We must burden our economies with expensive and useless climate mitigation programs otherwise we are all doomed. Or not?

Rare anti-Hezbollah catroon in The Age

2006-08-12T02:35:00.000+10:00

2006-08-10T21:34:00.000+10:00

Very slow day for the Duty Free shops at all London airports today…

Pallywood

2006-08-08T18:57:00.000+10:00

Watch this vide to see how Western public is being manipulated by Palestinian journalists. We must be so fucking gullible:

Is Australia Racist?

2006-08-04T23:43:00.000+10:00

During my eighteen moths stay in UK I keep being told how my adopted country of Australia is so racist. It seems to be a commonly held belief in Europe that Australia is a deeply racist country.

When I hear this it goes against my actual experience of living in Australia. I spent eight years and Oz and overall I haven’t seen any more racism there than anywhere else and certainly a lot less prejudice than in many other places.

How can a country be told that it is deeply racist when the Premiere of Victoria Steve Bracks is of Lebanese descent, the major of Melbourne John So is Chinese (who doesn’t speak English that well), the winner of Australian Idol Guy Sebastian is Malaysian born, the captain of Australian rugby team George Gregan was born in Zambia, the AFL god Ron Barassi is Italian. Australian entertainers include African-American Marcia Hines, Shri Lankan Kamahl, Torres Straight Islander Christine Anu and Croatian Eric Bana (Banadinovic).

When I try to object I am being told: “but what about Pauline Hanson”? And what about her? She was a racist bitch and some people that voted for her were probably racist too. But, in a deeply racist society would the things she said cause such a stir? I doubt it. In fact, I believe the outrage that she caused proved that overwhelming majority of Australians are not racist.

Australia still remains one of the most desirable destinations for migrants (1). People flock to this country from all over the World. Would they want to come to the racists country that it is claimed to be?

One cannot explain to me why in such “racist” country do we have so many wonderful immigrant communities, why we choose to work, live and marry the foreigners of every creed and colour. Is Australia racist? Of course there are some racist elements, but overall no way!

1. Mark Coultan, “Australia seen as land of opportunity”, Sydney Morning Herald, 28.06.2005

http://tinyurl.com/yflcmt

Britain's Hottest Day Ever

2006-07-20T19:55:00.000+10:00

The Independent reports that Britain experienced it's hottest-ever July day yesterday at the recording station at Charlwood in Surrey, where just after 1.30pm the thermometer reached 36.3C. The article goes on to predictably attribute this to the man-made global warming.

What is curious to anyone with half the brain, is that the last record of 36 degrees was set in 1911 (almost 100 years ago). That is before the pesky human emissions allegedly started to play a major role in the "runaway global warming" process.

Another point to make is that the previous record was only beaten by the miserly 0.3 of a degree. This actually represents only 0.8% difference and that is actually lower than the margin of error of the temperature measuring equipment.

Yesterday was very hot indeed but the case put forward by the global warming alarmists here is pretty cold.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1187005.ece

Bob's at it again

2006-06-30T21:45:00.000+10:00

At a recent press conference in London Bob Geldof showed his displeasure with slow progress of increasing aid to Africa.

Amongst other things Geldof said: “A parent makes a promise to a child and if that promise is broken cynicism and a lack of trust set in.

The promise from the economically powerful to the economically weak is more important because if we break that promise we kill them.”

Parent promise to a child? Are Africans children? Bob’s children perhaps? Maybe he views himself as the father of all Africans. Or maybe it’s just a nicer racist term to describe Africans as children that are not capable of helping themselves.

As usual, not a word about corruption and bad governance that have so much more to do with African poverty than the lack of Western Aid. Pathetic!

Are we all going to drown?

2006-06-13T23:22:00.000+10:00

Oceanologist Ian Plimer on seal level rise alarmists:

"If there is a sea-level rise we would expect every atoll in every ocean to be inundated. But we don't see this. We would expect harbours around the world to record a sea level rise. This is not recorded. So something is seriously wrong with the catastrophist dogma."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19417715-7583,00.html

Remember this song?

2006-06-10T03:50:00.000+10:00

Hitchens on Zarqawi

2006-06-07T22:32:00.000+10:00

I think Christopher Hitchens put it beautifully when he wrote: "How can anyone, looking down the gun-barrel into the stone face of Zarqawi, say that fighting him is a "distraction" from fighting al Qaeda?"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008120

Why am I sceptical of global warming?

2006-06-06T20:22:00.000+10:00

I think that the big reason for the rampant environmentalism and so called scientific consensus stems from the monetarisation of global warming issue. Basically, because it is such a topic of concern, there is a lot of money around for scientists to research climate change. If they prove that global warming is not happening, or that it's nothing to worry about, generous grants will dry up.

I saw a great sketch once where the cancer charity worker announces to his colleagues that the cure for cancer is found. They all let off a lukewarm cheer and go home looking pretty sad, as their services are no longer required. Next day it is announced that unfortunately the earlier announcement was a mistake, but the bad news are met with high fives. Back to work!!!

I first became skeptical of global warming when I began to realize that there is literally no "visible" debate over this complex issue. I got curious and learnt that some scientists are being muzzled and discredited not based on the arguments put forward but based on the sources of their funding or their association. Surely if global warming was such an obvious certainty there would be no need to resort to personal attacks.

David R. Legates is Associate Professor in Climatology in the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware and a prominent global warming skeptic. In the past he was frequently attacked for his association with the industry even though his academic credentials are impeccable. Legates made these points well in his Senate evidence when he said, "As a Christian, my ethics and morality would preclude me from making a scientific statement without scientific proof. On the other hand, I cannot say that everyone holds themselves to such standards. A colleague of mine went to a Regional Assessment Group meeting associated with the 'United States National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change'. A climatologist providing the regional assessment indicated that the climate would be 'warmer and wetter'. At the meeting, my colleague confronted the group, arguing that it is just as likely to be 'colder and drier'. The response from the group: "We're getting funding from the EPA to say that it's warmer and wetter, so it'll be warmer and wetter."

Murray. Not dead yet

2006-06-01T23:22:00.000+10:00

It has become a common knowledge in Australia that the Murray River is dying. The river is suffocating from salinity. The crisis is of truly epic proportions where the area twice the size of Tasmania may be affected by salinity. The people of Adelaide are told that their drinking water is being poisoned by salt and Australia's most productive farmland is believed to be slowly drowning in a saline flood. The beautiful Murray River is dying. For so many in academic circles, environmental groups and the media this impending catastrophe has been an article of almost religious faith for years.

Yet as Australia’s Chanel 9 Sunday program reposts the threats have been largely exaggerated and billions in public money was spent to fight the problem that was largely a hoax or at least a non-event.

Murray’s salinity is now lower than it was in post WWII levels. The populations of Murray Cod are extremely healthy. No wonder the local farmers and fisherman are bemused by the “death” of the river scare stories they see in the papers. They have never seen the Murray as healthy as it is now.

The investigation has also found that while Murray’s the salinity levels have actually halved, the CSIRO Land and Water website declared that the levels were increasing. When CSIRO were challenged they just quietly removed the statement from their website.

Reminds me of the recent polar bear extinction scare that went largely unchallenged. Polar bears are said to be on the brink of extinction caused by global warming. Yet of 20 polar bear colonies all but two are stable or increasing.

Even the science of salinity and how it occurs has been disputed. For at least 30 years, the official explanation for salinity has been that cutting down trees and other land clearing is making groundwater rise, pushing salt up to root zones or the surface, killing plants. This explanation, called the Rising Regional Groundwater Theory, is used in all the models to predict salinity across Australia. But it’s never been proven. It’s still just a theory. Yet billions of dollars have been spent trying to fix salinity problems using solutions based on it.

You can see the transcript at:

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1991.asp

Climate Change, Clear as Mud...

2006-06-01T20:02:00.000+10:00

New Scientist reports:
Global warming is not a new problem. It caused temperatures in the Arctic Ocean to soar to sub-tropical levels 55 million years ago, new research claims. Rock samples taken from the ocean floor showed its surface was once as warm as 18 degrees Celsius and ice-free. Then, in an event known as the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum, temperatures soared to 23 degrees Celsius – more than 10 degrees Celsius higher than previously thought.

Wow, all that without a single “cancer of the planet” human around?

Good Cause - Bad cause

2006-06-01T19:53:00.000+10:00

I was walking around London a couple of weekends ago and there was a demonstration in Trafalgar square in support of Palestinian cause. There were thousands of people on the square. Good show from the Socialist Party. So many references were made to war in Iraq and Bush with his evil administration and the appalling treatment of people in the Middle East. Injustice was the theme.

About 500 meters away was a small demonstration outside Zimbabwean embassy to protest against Mugabe and his disastrous rule. There were maybe 20 people there. We are certainly blind to some injustices but not others...

Washington vs. Teheran

2006-05-24T23:20:00.000+10:00

Let’s see, on one hand we have a president (A) of a democratic country that guarantees freedom of thought, expression, belief and religion to all of citizens.

One the other hand we have a president (B) of theocratic country that denies rights to women, religious and ethnic minorities, puts people who speak their mind in jail and called to wipe another country off the map.

So which one of these is constantly portrayed as a village idiot and which one is “talking sense”?

Well seems like A is the idiot and B is taking sense. And it seems the more educated and liberal you are, the more obvious it is. Does anyone else notice anything strange about this?

Ozone Layer

2006-05-23T17:52:00.000+10:00

I read in one magasine today that if you are concerned about the damage that your air travel does to ozone layer. You can reduce impact by paying a charity to plant trees in India.

Planes do not cause a major deplition of ozon layer. Ozone layer depletion is mainly caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are no longer produced in industrialized countries, and will eventually be eliminated worldwide.

Planting trees will do absolutely nothing to repair the ozone hole. Trees don't produce ozone. They convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. But it seems reason is not needed to push an agenda these days. The public is so porly educated on environmental issues that they will swollow just about anything...

More on animal rights

2005-09-28T21:23:00.000+10:00

The whole concept of animal rights and even its name: “animal rights” is quite ridiculous. Should animas have rights? And what about their responsibilities?

Let’s look at the human rights concept to see if we can apply it to animals. Humans have rights because they are profoundly different from animals: humans can reason and animals cannot. A human may decide to stop eating meat based on ethical reasons but a bear or a dog cannot. Similarly a human can stop harming other humans based on reason, ethic and compassion but an animal cannot.

Without any doubt the most fundamental of all human rights is the right to life. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person”. This right is based on reasoning and ethics and is universally agreed to by other humans. This article does not apply to animals. If animals were to start killing human beings we would think it was ridiculous to say that they were in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and should be referred to the UN.

Any similar declaration regarding animals’ right to life will be pointless as it will not apply to other animals. Even if the humans agree not to kill animals for any reason, other animals will continue to do so. Such right will not guarantee any animal any security as it will not prevent other animals from harming it. I would love to see somebody trying to explain to a lion that it should respect gazelle’s right to life and choose a protein bar instead.

Human beings are not the only creatures capable of violence and cruelty. Animals are every bit as brutal. The fact that we live in a sanitised world and see violence mainly on TV, does not alter the natural order of things. Human beings should respect animals and whenever possible try to make efforts to alleviate needless suffering and cruelty directed at animals. This however doesn’t have to involve giving animals rights it just means that us humans must have more responsibilities.

2005-09-13T22:30:00.000+10:00

Why is it that the left seeks to protect “minor” religions they consider to be exotic? Is the left a friend of religion in general?

Well, no it seems. Just look at their treatment of Christian religion. It seems that it is absolutely OK to criticise and offend religion and its leaders as long as they are Christian or Jewish. At the same time Islam, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, Voodoo and the host of other “minor” religions are out of bounds. Try criticising them even objectively and you are a redneck bigot.

I am not personally religious and I don’t want to defend Judo-Christian religion here. I am just alarmed by the inconsistency of the left. How can you be genuine, when on one hand you are upset about the treatment of gay clergy in the West and at the same time you put clearly and aggressively homophobic Rastafarians and firebrand Muslims beyond reproach. How can you be serious about women’s rights if you muzzle anyone who seeks to criticise the use of religion to subordinate women. This feels like some bizarre exercise in moral relativism. Just treat and scrutinise all religions equally seems to be the obvious answer.

2005-08-12T20:12:00.000+10:00

I think a lot of Muslim thinkers miss two crucial points when trying to reconcile Islam with the West.

The first point is the historical reference. All too often Islamic thinkers try to look at historical factors. Their texts are peppered with references Crusades, Al-Andalus and Ottoman Empire. This exposes a deep gulf between the Western and Islamic school of thought. The forward looking West and backward looking Islamic world. At least this is the perception that one gets, the reality is no doubt more complex. For the West these chapters of history are just that – history. For a lot of Muslims they are a constant source of agitation and discontent.

The second point is the Islamic – Judo/Christian divide. Too much emphasis is given to analysing the relationship between Islam and Judo/Christian religions. This again gives a sense that Islamic thinkers are out of touch with reality. In secular Western societies religion plays a spiritual role but religious institutions do not seek to control all aspects of human interactions. In short West is not a Judo/Christian entity and should not be viewed as such.

Root Causes of Terrorism

2005-08-03T22:52:00.000+10:00

Root causism has become a popular mantra of the left in relation to terrorism.
Root causism is a belief that we can find root causes of terrorism and by eliminating them solve the problem of terrorism forever. Furthermore the root causes of terrorism as portrayed by the Left are mainly the Western policies in Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Unfortunately the reasons behind terrorism and Islamism are complex and fixing one single issue such as Iraq or Israel may reduce the threat of terrorism in the West but will not eliminate it. The article “Roots of Muslim Rage” by a respected Islamic historian Bernard Lewis gives a very good inside into the roots of Islamism and terrorism and offers explanations that are much more plausible then a simple root cause mantra:
www.sullivan-county.com/id3/lewis1.htm

As I read the article the bigger picture started to emerge. The rise of Islamism is the Islamic response to the West’s cultural, economical, political and military dominance over Muslim countries. This dominance is not going to be resolved by withdrawing from Iraq or Israel, the damage is already done. And the roots of the problem go back several centuries and cannot be easily remedied.

The solution can come only from the Islam itself. Islam will have to modernise and recognise that the hard line is wrong. You simply cannot go forward by going backwards. This realisation will occur sooner or later. Terrorists can stage spectacular attacks but they cannot take on the world. Unfortunately for them, Western ideals are close to hearts of most of the world’s people and taking on the world by means of violence will be doomed to failure.

Where to now for the British multiculturalism?

2005-08-03T20:47:00.000+10:00

London bombings of 7/7 and 21/7 have made a lot of people question British policy of multiculturalism. At times it has been quite amusing for an outsider to observe the right blaming recent events on the “failed policy of multiculturalism”; while the left engaged in the predictable rhetoric of making excuses for the attacks. The left also suggested that the multiculturalism does not in fact go far enough, and if only we don’t alienate Muslim youth and piss off Muslims in general we will solve the problem.

My personal feeling on this lies somewhere in between those extremes. I don’t see anything particularly wrong with multiculturalism. However, I do not believe that we should be more understanding of the people that are willing to indiscriminately kill innocent citizens. I honestly don’t care what their motives are, their actions speak louder then words.

Of course Britain should do more to win the hearts and minds of disaffected Muslims. At the same time we should recognise that disaffectedness is not limited to Muslim communities and hence cannot be cited as the main cause of London bomb attacks. The ideology that justifies terrorism should be dealt with and not excused by cultural relativism and various theories of “evil West” making nice people blow themselves up because we are so mean.

So where to now for the British multiculturalism? As I said earlier, I don’t believe multiculturalism is fundamentally wrong. What is wrong with its British application is the failure of fostering an embracing British identity. After coming to Britain from Australia I am constantly shocked with how little pride Brits take in their own country. The evidence of this can be seen everywhere; from second generation Pakistanis calling themselves Pakistanis rather then British or British-Pakistanis to the way British throw rubbish on the ground without ever thinking about what it does to the cities and the land they share with others.

Brits often criticize Americans in Iraq for being inept or inexperienced in “nation building”. To be fair to Americans they are much better in nation-building on their own soil then British are. I know that displaying one’s flag or screening cheesy Stars and Stripes or “I am, you are, we are Australian” songs on television can be seen as tacky but it is a necessary part of nation-building and fostering a shared system of values.

The sense of nationhood should not be taken for granted. It can and should be fostered. Britain must find the symbols of Britishness that can be shared by the entire country. Sport can offer one such platform to foster national identity particularly in the light of 2012 Olympics in London. So can government advertising campaigns showing people of different backgrounds talking about why they are proud to be British. It is simplistic, but trust me it works. Every time I see a sports game in which Australia is playing I get tears of joy and pride in my eyes when Australians get up to sing their national anthem and I am not even an Australian citizen. There is never anything even remotely like it when “God save the Queen” comes on. It is a powerful feeling.

For those "defending" terrorists

2005-07-27T02:38:00.000+10:00

For those "convenient idiots" who keep to the ignorant line of terrorism is bad but... line even in the face of the worst atrocities see the article tracing the history of Islamic terrorism in Europe:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1708389,00.html

It started before well Iraq and before 9/11 (i.e. before the issue first grabbed your attention). Western policies are bad at times; Iraq war was arguably a mistake but stop apologising for the terrorists. Terrorism is wrong and there are no buts.

Leftist British media’s stance on terrorism

2005-07-22T02:19:00.000+10:00

I must admit I still read lefty newspapers: Guardian, Independent and so forth. However since 7/7 I look at the leftist newspapers as part of the problem of terrorism rather then part of the solution. You may think it is harsh but let me explain myself.

Since the London bombings leftist media has been full of the articles that use variations of the following formula: Step 1: Write one paragraph condemning the attacks. Step 2: Use the word BUT. Step 3: Use a number of paragraphs to explain that the attacks were our fault, that we need to bow to the terrorists demands, and that there will be more to come if we continue to be nasty. The Guardian even ran an article by Dilpazier Aslam, who as it turns out, wrote for radical Islamic magazines:
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/
sassy_suicide_b.html

Now let me state straight away, that I actually agree with the assessment that British policy in Iraq has contributed to the 7/7 bombings by alienating a lot of Muslims and making it easier to get terrorist recruits to join the cause. And there is nothing wrong in my opinion with writing about this. This is however a far cry from the leftist mantra that we are responsible for the attacks ourselves.

Perhaps I am oversimplifying the situation but the sort of coverage that I mentioned earlier serves to legitimize terrorism. Constant rambling about how we screwed up the Middle East with our nasty policies takes all the responsibility for the problem of terrorism away from Muslims and Muslim governments. It is not constructive and adds nothing to the debate that we haven’t heard before.

And please stop your buts. Otherwise we can say:
Hitler killed the Jews BUT he built some very nice roads. Or.
Stalin killed 10 million of his own citizens BUT he won the war for us. Or.
Mao murdered 30 million Chinese BUT Andy Warhol’s images of him are so cool.

9/11

2004-12-03T09:52:00.000+11:00

Every time I hear: "The events of September 11 have changed the world forever" or "The world is not safe as it once was"; I think of my grandfather who fought the Germans in WWII. He passed away when I was just seven so I don’t remember him all that well, nor do I remember him ever telling me anything about the war. All I know is that he was what Russians call a “tankist” or someone who drives a tank. He served throughout the duration of the WWII, went all the way to Berlin and survived.

I guess, he was just incredibly lucky because officials estimate that 20 million Russians died in that war. Estimates put the total loss of European lives at over 40 million. The death and devastation that WWII caused is almost beyond imaginable.

On this background why is it that “the events of September 11 have changed the world forever” and “the world is not safe as it once was”? It feels to me this carry on is a slap in the faces of the service men and women who fought and died in wars before us. It shows once again what a weak and gutless civilisation we have become, when a bunch of thugs who manage to kill just over 3,000 people albeit in a very cruel and spectacular fashion can keep us living in fear for over three years.

9/11 was a tragedy but what has happened to 9/11 since, is even more of a tragedy. The events of 9/11 have been exploited by politicians, media and business world alike. George Bush is now a “war president”, never mind that at least one of the wars America is currently involved in didn’t have to be stared. Every day there is a fresh terrorist alert that is serious enough to consider, but we don’t often get a follow up. The Australian government sends out a bunch of brochures about the threat of terrorism as part of their “be alert but not alarmed” campaign. The economy is still shaken after the events of 9/11. You get my drift. Almost everything can be justified or blamed on 9/11 even after three years. It is surprising that the public still buys this obvious exploitation. Like a flock of sheep we are willing to follow our leaders in diminishing our civil liberties and waging unjust wars based on dubious evidence.

Next time you think about 9/11 try and put it into perspective. We live in some of the most peaceful times ever. Just think of the 40 million Europeans that died in the WWII. Try to summon enough courage to stand up and say: "I am not scared…"

Can it be, that what we do causes more harm then good?

2004-11-29T14:08:00.000+11:00

What a surprise. I thought that nobody reads these things. My first ever blog posing and the first reply from KIEL.

I agree with what KIEL says. A somewhat similar scenario was shown in a documentary on the plight of Chukchi people of Kamchatka region of Far East Russia. Chukchis traditionally sustained themselves by eating whale meat. Now, I don’t mean they consider the whale meat a delicacy as do Japanese, who have an army of sophisticated whaling boats that systematically violate international conventions by exploiting a loophole that allows limited killing of whales for scientific purposes. Japanese boats chase and kill whales in the international water callously displaying signs such as: “Tissue collection in progress”. The tissue samples of course end up at the Tokyo markets for around $100 per kilo.

Back to Chukchis. Chuckchis have to adhere to the rules and regulations imposed on the “native hunters” by various international government and non-government organisations. One of the rules states the hunters must use traditional hunting vessels. This means boats made out of seal skins that leak. Every year people die while hunting for no better reason than to appease western sensibilities towards whales. The Chukchi people are not commercial whale hunters like Japanese; they only take what they need. But that doesn’t change the rules they have to hunt by, and they are paying with their lives.

What I am getting at here, is very often it seems that us westerners set the rules that govern the lives of people in far away places based on very limited understanding of their lives and environment. It is very easy for a westerner who gets their sustenance from a Safeway grocery store to tell Chukchis to stop killing whales, without any real concept that these people’s survival does actually depend on eating whales. It appears that for a lot people in the west, the livelihood of animals is more important than the livelihood of our fellow human beings. Too often it seems our “wise” judgments are influenced by films like Bambi and Free Willy, and the host of ignorant celebrities jumping on the latest fad cause, rather then sound science and common sense.

Animal Rights

2004-11-25T13:35:00.000+11:00

I saw a piece on the 60 minutes a while ago and about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and it got me thinking. I found myself on one hand agreeing with the idea of treating animals ethically and with respect. On another hand I find the position of PETA very extreme. The extreme nature of their views can be seen from PETA’s mission statement:

“PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment” (http://www.peta.org/about/).

This is a very strong position albeit, in my opinion, very naïve and not entirely logical. Perhaps a part of this can be traced to the fact that I eat and love meat. Now, I have no illusions about what’s going on in the abattoirs and butcher shops. Killing an animal is cruel; there is no doubt about it. Animals do suffer.

Some bioethicists like Peter Singer argue that humans should not eat meat because we have a capacity to reason and choose. A lion for example has no capacity to choose if it can eat meat, but we have. Therefore we need to make a right choice and not eat meat. However, it seems that humans genuinely need protein. According to the experts on human evolution, humans developed larger brains because unlike other primates they consumed protein. And they aren’t talking about proteins derived from nuts, but the animal proteins. So here is the dilemma - the very conscience that I and PETA members possess, the conscience that should be telling us to stop eating meat, was actually developed through protein consumption of our forbearers. Humans are by nature omnivores, we can eat many of different foods and this ability is what makes us so successful and adaptable. Now, I am not saying that we should not try and look after the wellbeing of animals and make sure as little suffering is inflicted on the animals as possible. But I just cannot accept the world where humans, all humans don’t eat meat.

Very often when I try and argue that eating flesh has been a part of human history for our entire history, somebody would argue that early humans and even our recent ancestors had more humane ways of killing animals. These ways were much better than production lines used by companies like KFC to gas chickens. Part of my upbringing was spent in the rural area of Russia and I saw fist hand how the killing of animals by primitive methods is done. And I tell you there is not much humanity in cutting a sheep’s throat with a knife or chopping the chickens head off with an axe; or dare I say, hitting a monkey with a poisoned dart to let it fall out of tree canopy and break its neck. This argument seems to stem from emotions rather than reason. Emotions, which overcome people when they try to imagine a killing plant, a factory where millions of animals are slaughtered. However the pure scale of slaughter doesn’t make a killing of an individual animal in a factory any crueler that a slaughter of an individual animal by a farmer, and in a lot of cases it is much less so.

Another dimension to this issue is a simple matter of perspective. Killing, any killing is cruel from a human perspective. Not even every human perspective, but from late 20^th-early 21^st century human perspective. This human lives in a sanitised world almost totally devout of violence. Most of the violence we see is on TV happening to somebody else. Most of modern men have never been a serious fight nor do we desire to. To such being violence is awful and unnatural. But outside the human domain, cruelty is a natural part of almost any animal’s life. Anyone who watched a wildlife documentary would know that animals live in a very cruel world dominated by physical strength, violence and death. Sure these deaths are not systematic and not always inflicted by the beings with the “higher” consciousness, capable of reason and choice, but it is death nevertheless. Cruelty is not a human invention and nor are we the only creatures capable of inflicting it. Anyone who thinks otherwise should pick up a nature documentary from their local video store and see orcas throwing seal pups up in the air for fun, cats playing with dying mice and pack dogs fighting for food and domination.

There is no argument that there is plenty of room for improving animal welfare but it is not that same as totally abandoning the use of animals and all animal products for any purpose.