Does anyone have an opinion as to why so many huge problems are happening recently?
Earthquakes, death, hunger, crime & fraud.
We are supposed to be a civilized world. . so much 'wealth' and 'technology'. . yet not one of the serious problems we face today can be resolved by ant government we see around us.
Does anyone have an opinion as to why so many huge problems are happening recently?
Earthquakes, death, hunger, crime & fraud.
We are supposed to be a civilized world. . so much 'wealth' and 'technology'. . yet not one of the serious problems we face today can be resolved by ant government we see around us.
Well, no-one can control the weather, although apparently mankind is responsible for the warming of the planet and the wild weather we are having. Earthquakes are another matter entirely, I am not sure who controls them BUT starvation and disease are all things the World does have a fair degree of control over as far as aid is concerned. Crime and fraud, well that's a matter for crime control like the Police, Governments, and the Judicial system. As for death, no-one has mastered that one yet. But I agree the world seems to be fast tracking to hell and it is a horrible thing to watch. It makes one feel quite helpless. I give thanks every day that I was born in the 'Lucky Country' and not somewhere in a third world country.
I have given some thought to the earthquake thing. . men have been pulling oil out of the Earth for over 100 years now. . it must have been down there for a reason . .* everything on this planet is interlinked*. . maybe we are motoring around using the Earths 'spinal fluid' . . I know I would not be too healthy if the cushioning stuff around my backbone was removed. The earths crust. . *tectonic plates* have been moving on some sort of libricant that is now gone. . .*Just a thought*.
there aren't any more earthquakes than normal, they're just in the news more.
Sheese.
I use that word right back at you . . you signed up here to make this your one and only post???. . and then after all that you can't read???? . .not anywhere does it say quakes are becoming more prevalent . . just that they are making the news lately. . . and if you make light of the effect they have had on India. Pakistan, Africa and many other countries just this year. . leaving MILLIONS dead/homeless (just tell them your story) . . then you are more devastating than any earthquake. . you remain a spiteful ignorant pratt!.
DEMOCRACY = Voters deciding by Poll on who will be the local member that "Big Business" will push around.
Earthquakes are obviously stronger and more dangerous than they once were. I also believe that they are happening with more frequency. As for calling people idiot and the like Blackpaw, if you hadn't noticed this is a happy friendly forum and we do not go about calling other forum users, names. Is that clear?
Info on frequency and magnitude of earthquakes can be found here:
I believe the world we live in is simply decaying. Things are going to get worse and worse, spirling out of control downwards, getting faster and faster. Natural disasters, poverty, sickness, disease, it will all get much worse than it has been.
Gizmo and all the rest - learn to read, like umm the first post in this thread ? its clearly about *more* earthquakes disasters et al, as are most of the following posts, based purely on the posters subjective "gee whiz so many more bad things in the news the world is ending ..." no effort to get of their asses and actually look at some raw stats.
Also Gizmo you might note I made no mocking mentions of peoples deaths at all, if you're so quick to read such views into unrelated statements then perhaps you examine your own psyche, I detect a hint of projection.
SuziH - it would be nice if you learned post a url properly and also read figures - if anything that page shows a drop in earthquakes. Not that a 25 year period is significant in geological terms. Before you mention an increase in absolute death rates, I'll mention the rise in world population, though the trend in death rates was down, except for the last two years.
Devman, I call em like I see them. Of course its okay for people to personally abuse me ("spiteful ignorant pratt" anybody ?) glad to see your morals are so consistent.
Actually I do believe the world is going to hell in a hand basket, not due to any bollocks such as Giaia scratching an itch though, more to do with insane nationalistic polices practised by most of the world nations and population today and just *way* to many people on the planet.
A good stiff dose of bird flu would do the environment a world of good, and even the human race in the long term. Sucks for us personally of course.
Bonus points for the most knee jerk interpretation of who I mean by "us"
It seems the internet has become the new Bible. You can get references to support any position.
It works like this; you first make up your mind on a subject before knowing anything about it then you ignore any facts that do not support your position.
I was the one who posted that first comment. . .it was intended to simply get people 'chatting'.
SuziH is right as is Simpson . . quakes ARE getting more devastating. We see very large populations now affected and the death tolls are rising. The worlds insurance companies don't know which way to turn for relief as costly damage is done. Rescuers still have not reached many villages in Afghanistan and Pakistan and a freeezing winter will arrive in 6 weeks.
I am tired of the old argument that 'there are always quakes'. . . (I know there are over 300,00 per year). . .but just like lightning strikes. . I don't care about the 5mil that hit the Pacific Ocean each year. . . but the ones that strike people and property will always be noteworthy.
In the 70's people would have blamed the nuclear testing programs.
DEMOCRACY = Voters deciding by Poll on who will be the local member that "Big Business" will push around.
Can't we still blame it on that? Or Jeb Bush maybe? I lived in his state and didn't like some of the laws there. Can we just all agree to blame everything on Jeb and then we can all get along?
Feh - its obviously the fault of do gooders - a conspiracy between the Aussie & American Left, its all Clintons & Latham's fault, blocking our brave cowboy bush. They're in league with the terrorists.
Feh - its obviously the fault of do gooders - a conspiracy between the Aussie & American Left, its all Clintons & Latham's fault, blocking our brave cowboy bush. They're in league with the terrorists.
So it's not my husbands fault after all???. . . .darn!!. . one 'apology' dinner coming up. .
DEMOCRACY = Voters deciding by Poll on who will be the local member that "Big Business" will push around.
Has anyone else noticed that sometimes you do a certain thing like use the BOLD function or even the URL function key on your posts and they just don't work. I do try to get it right and I do know how to do it correctly it's just sometimes it doesn't work. No fault of mine, I might add. If 'anyone' cares to check all of my posts you will find I do know how to attach a URL properly, after the first day, lol.
Sometime in the next few billion years it will sizzle like bacon on the BBQ then when the sun dries up it will freeze. And after that it could be captured by a new star and the process started all over again or just wander aimlessly through the universe until it collides with a new planet with emerging life forms and wipe the lot out.
SuziH is right as is Simpson . . quakes ARE getting more devastating. We see very large populations now affected and the death tolls are rising. The worlds insurance companies don't know which way to turn for relief as costly damage is done.
I wonder if it could have anything to do with the growing of the world population.
After all, I would expect more victims in a town of 2 million people than in a town of 1 million people.
Then you have to wonder why people want to live in an area prone to earthquakes. Like San-Francisco. Why do people build their village at the foot of a volcano. Why do people live alongside a river prone to flooding?
The south of America is battled by tornados every year, but nobody seem to move out. They keep coming back for some more.
The reason is money. People are prepared to put their life at risk for money. In all the above mentionned, they want to live there because the land is fertile.
So it is very simple. The more people, the more victims. One thing that no-one will ever control is nature. The planet will never die because nature control it. The day we stuff up the planet, nature will wipe us out. And within a couple of hundred years, the planet will be green again with clean air.
Quoted Text
We are supposed to be a civilized world. . so much 'wealth' and 'technology'
It is a myth. It is the law which force us to be civilise. Remove the law and you have anarchy within 12 hours. We are just clever chimpanzees.
I have often wondered at these things myself and are we actually to blame, or is it just a turn of events, is it all just part of the evolution of the Planet as it has been in the past.
For instance, was it humans who caused the Planet too cool down and the subsequent Ice Age to happen, was it humans who caused the Planet to warm up again and the Ice Age to melt away (and yes I know there have been 3-4 different Ice Age Periods over time).
Could everything just be the way it is because it is a cycle that was going to happen even if the population was not so large, Earthquakes, Floods and etc; are more devastating because of the number of people in the World (as has been said).
What of the years past, I am sure even though things seem bad now, we are better off than in Roman Times, The Spanish Armada, or when the English were conquering the world, much more violence then than now ... disease was killing more people ... the Black Plague for one.
Between about 18,000 and 11,500 years ago the climate and environments of North America were changing rapidly. Temperatures were warming. Rainfall patterns were changing. The glaciers were melting. The seasonal difference in temperatures was increasing.
These climate changes were causing fundamental changes in the ecosystems of North America. Plants and animals were moving out of areas they had lived in and into new areas. Communities were coming apart and reorganizing.
Many scientists think that these climatic and ecosystem changes caused the extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene. The environmental changes might have caused extinction by eliminating food sources, disrupting birth schedules, or exposing animals to climatic conditions to which they were not adapted.
Hyperdisease:
The third hypothesis to account for large-scale extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene is based on the idea of hyperdiseases, which are highly infectious diseases.
This theory was most recently proposed by Dr. Ross MacPhee of the American Museum of Natural History and Dr. Preston Marx of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center. It supposes that as human populations expanded into new areas during the Pleistocene, for example, into North America approximately 14,000 years ago, they brought with them one or more disease-causing agents. These diseases, new to the New World, jumped from human or animal carriers (for example, their dogs) to the highly susceptible large native fauna. These diseases, according to this theory, were sufficiently lethal to wipe out the native animals.
Almost all scientists working on this problem agree that the extinction was caused by one of these two mechanisms or by some combination of them.
Both those scenarios of climate change and disease sound familiar do they not, much like what is happening in our world now, sure the impact on humans was less, though in reality 35 species of animals became extinct from the Mastodon to the Mammoth and etc; which if they were human, would be just as devastating as those lost in Quakes and what-not today (with a little imagination anyway, image species of animals sitting around watching communities/species destroyed on TV as we do now).
For instance, was it humans who caused the Planet too cool down and the subsequent Ice Age to happen, was it humans who caused the Planet to warm up again and the Ice Age to melt away (and yes I know there have been 3-4 different Ice Age Periods over time).
Could everything just be the way it is because it is a cycle that was going to happen even if the population was not so large, Earthquakes, Floods and etc; are more devastating because of the number of people in the World (as has been said).
If you are suggesting that the planet may have had 6 billion people on it before the previous ice age... I think not.
If that was the case, we would have found remains of those people and part of their lost cities. Nothing vanishes into thin air.
During those ice ages, the planet was still forming itself into the Earth that we know today.
As for the dinosaurs extinction, one possiblity is that our planet was hit by a large asteroid. That can really happen anytime and it is almost the same result as a full blown nuclear war, minus the radiations.
I don't know if the earthquakes are getting worse. But the weather surely is and will continue to do so. As we upset the atmosphere with our pollution, storms and cyclones will grow bigger and stronger, causing ever more damages. There will also be more of them.
The biggest worry is the melting of the ice poles. If they melt, the sea level will rise. With most of the global population living on the sea board, we are going to be wipe out.
Sydney for instance is relatively flat despite the appearances. If the sea level was to rise a couple of metres, most of Sydney would be under water right up to Penrith.
There is a line of volcanoes under water near the coast of New Zealand and the place is prone to earthquakes. If such an earthquake should occur at that particular spot, it would result in a tsunami which would hit the East coast of Australia between Brisbane and Bega. It did happen before... Before we came to Australia.
Australia itself has its share of volcanic activity. We are not immune to disasters. It is only a matter of time. Remember Newcastle?
The fact of the matter is that we are only stupid little humans thinking only about how much money we will have in our pocket by next Friday. If we were to stop for one minute to think about the bigger picture, we might think about altering our life style. Be happy and enjoy the day while you can. Because everyday is a bonus.
This natural cycle of things is an absolute furphy. Another leading scientist in the pay of the energy companies has come out with this yet again. He said that when we look back over 100 years things look bad but if we look back over 1 million we find the heating and cooling of the earth are natural cycles (and he is right) and we are in a natural heating cycle now, and in this he is wrong.
If you look at every other cooling and heating cycle in earth's history, except for a massive disaster like the meteor, they have all happened over many thousands of years, with around ten to twenty thousand being typical. Here is the big difference, the current warming cycle has occurred just in the last century. Apart from a massive disaster there has never been recorded in Earth's history a climate change as rapid as is now happening (and its accelerating).
With climate change taking place over thousands of years many things can adapt, the ones that can't die out, and many new species appear to take advantage of the new climate. What is currently happening is very little is having time to adapt so we are in the middle of a mass extinction (also being pushed along by direct destruction by man) and nothing but pestilent species adapted to warm climates and ones who feed off or are domesticated by man are multiplying.
What is now happening with the climate is not natural and nor is it good as some scientists are also trying to aver.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Aussies-Online, no I was not suggesting that humans were around in the billions during the Pleistocene Period, which was some of the point I was making they were not and the climate still changed (as is questioned in what I wrote and in the second part of what was quoted by you).
Yes Dinosaurs were more than likely wiped out by a Meteor, which happened in the Jurassic Period when there were no humans around, the period I mention (Pleistocene), happened well after that ... which can be seen here at this link about Time Periods in Earth's History: Geological Time
Also yes Climate change has happened on Earth in thousand of years cycles, the last really being that 10,000 year ago warming of the Pleistocene Period, over the last 10.000 years we have been in what is called the Holocene Period, which has seen slow changes to he environment over time as well, I am 45 and have seen some, how many my age and older have asked where has the Summer gone we remember as children for one (also small Ice ages between 1200 and 1700 A.D).
Now I am not saying that we have not had an impact on the Environment, of course we have, just like every Species and Fauna that has been on the planet has to some extent, even out good old Gum Trees in Australia have, they were once considered a weed and took over as a result of fires, wiping out many species of Fauna due to there ability to survive.
Yes we can impact change, each and everyone of us posting about this can, yet will we ... who here will turn off or down their heating over winter, come summer, who will turn off or down their Air Conditioners, how many will leave their cars behind and catch public transport or car pool and etc ... yes the Government can help change things, however it still comes down to us as consumers as well ... how are we all willing to change our lifestyles
Instead of the Government investing in Nuclear Power, the billions that are spent on that could be used to help fund a role out of Solar in all our Major Cities, imagine how many Skyscrapers could be used to harness the Sun ... imagine them using there heating and cooling systems running on that Solar Power .... energy consumption would drop dramatically ... especially if our Shopping Centres were also used for Solar.
That would also cut the cost of installing Solar and make it affordable for each and everyone of us to install it on our homes rooftops ... there are kilometres and kilometres of roofs in Australia that can be mini-power stations (Solar is also set up to feed back into the Electricity Grid) … for an average home now it is $30,000 in cost (out of reach of most Australians … though some could instead of buying that SVU I suppose, however they have to be convinced first).
Think about Summer in Australia, while we are all at work that is power going back into the Grid all day, we could virtually run cooling from what is collected at no cost to us (as in Electricity Bill wise), at all ... in fact those who use Air Conditioning now would see the bill drop in major ways ... you could even run heating on it, sure it may only drop your bill by half, yet it is still a drop in Coal burned energy.
The problem is how do you convince the general population to change their ways and save what we have now for the Generations to come ... after all we really are just borrowing the Planet of them ... how do you convince people to change, the high cost of Petrol now has not changed the use of the Car by people in the main ... hell even with water you still see people washing there cars, housing down their driveways, watering their gardens during the day in summer (even in winter after a rain, the other day I saw someone out with the house on the garden).
Long rant I know ... however I guess in short it comes down to each and everyone of us to impact change as well ... there is only so much a Government can do ... the rest is up to us and well, can we place our faith in each other to make changes now.
. . . in short it comes down to each and everyone of us to impact change as well ... there is only so much a Government can do ... the rest is up to us and well, can we place our faith in each other to make changes now.
Who do we listen to for the best advice??. . we don't have time to waste in listening to 'scientists' who are motivated by $$$ for research projects. . and do they REALLY know what to do?. . Politicians are woefully unable to give good advice. . . big business is interested in big $$$$. . and religious leaders are too busy with 'little boys' and fighting each other to notice the world around them has gone 'nuts'.
Where do we look for good solid advice on how to fix things??
DEMOCRACY = Voters deciding by Poll on who will be the local member that "Big Business" will push around.
Where do we look for good solid advice on how to fix things??
That is were the dilemma is really, who do we listen to and how do you get Joe/Jane Public to understand and see the problem and (for want of a better word) confirm to that ... we see it now with water ... as soon as it rains the usage on a daily basis rises and we get reminders on the news (or whatever) that just because we have had some rain does not mean we should not still conserve it.
All the various State Government Adverts in the world and still you see people washing cars, washing down driveways and cleaning out gutters with a hose, also not turning off auto sprinklers in winter (you see them going even when raining) and etc; so how do you get the general population to listen.
Even as far as Plastic Bags for Shopping goes, $2:00 and you can buy one to reuse, yet plastic ones still are the main ones used, should the Government sponsor that as well so as companies can ditch plastic altogether and give shoppers those instead for free ... most people now know of how to solve some problems, yet it is only around 10% of the population doing so.
Even in home recycling ... it still runs at around 40% of household waste being recycled ... 60% of what can be recycled is still thrown into general waste (it is much easier to throw that Peanut Butter jar for instance into the regular garbage than wash it out for some), it is much easier to buy paper plates, plastic knives/forks, paper napkins and throw them in the general garbage bin than have some china plates and proper cutlery and wash them when you have a BBQ (you can buy those things just as cheap as paper plates at an Op Shop for BBQ use only).
So that is kind of what I mean when I say the Government can only do so much and the rest is up to us (after all how many black ballons coming out of appliances can they use)... yes who do we believe or listen to is a very valid point ... however so is how do we get people to listen as well, it is easy to come up with ways to make things better, getting people to actually do it is another thing.
The problem is how do you convince the general population to change their ways and save what we have now for the Generations to come ...
With very very great difficulty.
It is our increasing wealth and the demand for cheap goods from Asia which has created our consumer society.
This is relatively new. It only started in the 60's and doubled with each decade passing.
We have an insatiable desire for electric and electronic goods. Which require power.
Most people I know have an air-conditionning, if not two. In the seventies, very few people could afford them. Since 1980, everyone has become the proud owner of a video recorder, a computer, a DVD player and a mobile phone. None of these existed prior 1980.
Besides the power consumption, it is the garbage it create as we disregard things as soon as they break down. Nothing gets repaired because it is cheaper to buy a new one. Who is going to pay to repair a $50.00 DVD player?
So we have a mountain of electronic components going to the tip.
We have a zillion things operating on batteries. Everytime you are throwing a dead batterie in your garbage bin, you are polluting the ground where it will be buried.
Did you know that a video recorder on standby burn as much power as if you were playing a tape? How many of you had their video recorder on standby for the last 20 years?
For most cars these days, air-conditionning is not even an option anymore. It is standard and people turn it on most of the time. It requires power. Power = Petrol.
People have the choice. It is only the people with little money who make those choices. People with a good salary won't make any sacrifice to save the environment. Their personnal comfort comes first. It is not only the consumer society, it should be called the selfish society.
To highlight what I was saying about water further up ... looks like one of our worst nightmares is about to hit real hard:
Quoted Text
Wimmera's reservoirs dry up.
Paul Heinrichs July 9, 2006
The signs sticking out of dry embankments make their own sad commentary on the state of the Wimmera's water storages.
"Swimming from this structure prohibited," is the stern warning to those who might contemplate a jump from the stonewall of the once-mighty Rocklands Reservoir, west of the Grampians.
A photograph in the nearby wooden shelter shows what it must have been like when the sign went up. In October 1996, a massive torrent of water is gushing over the 28-metre-high dam wall.
Swimming was dangerous then because the swimmer could be swept away. There is no chance of that today.
A jump from most points on the wall would now be a suicidal plunge on to rocks and earth, because the water has receded below.
It has been all-downhill from 1996, in what is a 10-year horror story of worsening drought.
The impact on the region's estimated $2 billion agricultural economy, and the follow-on effect on the state's coffers, is expected to be huge.
The big dry has swallowed the contents of the reservoir system around the Grampians, leaving it with just 6.4 per cent of capacity — only 48,000 megalitres out of 750,000, it is nowhere near enough to enable the nation's pre-eminent granary to sustain full production in the next two years.
For the first time, the winter release of reservoir water into the 11,000 kilometres of channels feeding farm dams has been cancelled, this means they will be without water to mix with cropping sprays, for their sheep, cattle, grains and for other uses.
Unless there is heavy rain and inflow to catchments before August 1, farmers will get no water for their 20,000 dams this year.
The only channel flow will be 25,000 megalitres to provide the region's 74 towns with enough water for household use.
Also:
Quoted Text
Water Storages Down Again.
Mathew Murphy July 10, 2006
Melbourne’s water storages have decreased a further 0.3% (4,822 million litres) this week to 47.7% (846,725 million litres) full.
Storages are now at a level 4.3% lower than at the same time last year when they were 52.1% (924,058 million litres) full.
It was a dry June in Melbourne’s four major water catchments, the Thomson Reservoir recorded its lowest June rainfall since 1979 (22.6mm), while the Upper Yarra and Maroondah reservoirs recorded their lowest June rainfalls since 1972 (29.4mm and 29.4mm respectively), O’Shannassy Reservoir recorded it’s lowest June rainfall in 79 years.
Tougher water restrictions could come into force as early as next month (August) as Victoria continues to experience one of its driest periods on record.
State Environment Minister John Thwaites has indicated that if Melbourne does not receive steady rainfall over the next couple of weeks, tougher water restrictions could apply in August.
The State Government will redraft stage one and two water restrictions after stage one restrictions became permanent water-saving measures in March last year.
If the Wimmera continues like it is, we will be hit real hard as the price of food will sky rocket, in bread, beef, lamb and etc; that on top of already rising costs due to the price in fuel, and the Crops that were wiped out in Queensland recently ... tougher water restrictions in Winter ... looks like it will be a long hard dry summer coming up.
Six renewable energy projects have been awarded federal funding in the latest round of grants for environmentally-friendly power sources.
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane announced the recipients of the second round of grants under the government's Renewable Energy Development Initiative:
* CSR Sugar, Queensland, will get $5 million to develop its ethanol energy production.
* Geothermal Resources, South Australia, will get $2.4 million to develop the heat-generating capacity of buried hot radiogenic granite.
* Powercorp, Northern Territory, will receive $2.34 million to develop an electricity grid stabilising system for large wind-farm interconnection.
* Australia Renewable Fuels, South Australia, to receive $348,100 for micro-algal feedstock biodiesel production.
* New Energy Partners, NSW, will get $258,000 for its parabolic solar collector for medium-temperature application.
* SQC, Queensland, will receive $200,000 to produce hydrocarbons from algae.
Mr Macfarlane said the grants would help Australia develop alternative energies.
"The diversity in this round's recipients bodes well for development of future energy technologies, from alternate transport fuels through to wind farms, solar energy, geothermal and biomass technologies - all of which will reduce greenhouse emissions," he said in a statement.
I do not know if anyone saw Beyond Tomorrow last night, however they had a piece on Brazil and how they started all this 30 years ago, they now have cars that can run on Compressed Gas, Ethanol, a Combination of Ethanol/Petrol, all from one engine, you roll up at the Bowser which is ever cheaper you fill up with (the car can run on all 3), and there is not one Service Station over there that stocks Petrol on it's own now.
You know what is more the pity in all this, if we had of started this even just 5 years ago, all that ruined sugar crop in Queensland from the Cyclones earlier this year, could of still been used to make Ethanol ... so not only would of it benefited us now with Petrol prices high, it would of benefited the workers as no lost jobs and the Government would of not had to bail out CSR with grants to cover for those crop losses.
Really also wish that in the Northern Territory at least, they had of made grants to allow Solar Cells to be built and used in there Power Grids (all that naturalpower going to waste out there), however at least this is a begining, good to see Bio-Diesel get a guernsey as well ... some of that millions of litres of waste oil from our fast food outlets chip fryers (McDonalds, Hungry Jacks, KFC and etc), may have a use soon.
A Radical plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions by rationing the carbon use of individuals is being drawn up by British Government officials.
The scheme could force consumers to carry a swipe card that records their personal carbon allocation, with points deducted each time they buy petrol or airline tickets.
Under the scheme, all British citizens from the Queen down would be allocated an identical annual carbon allowance, stored as points on an electronic card.
Points would be deducted at point of sale for every purchase of non-renewable energy.
People who did not use their full allocation, such as those who do not own a car, would be able to sell surplus carbon points into a central bank.
High energy users could then buy them.
Motorists who had used their allocation would still be able to buy petrol with carbon points drawn from the bank and the cost added to their fuel bills.
To reduce total emissions, the overall number of points would shrink each year.
The plan was released as a heatwave continued in Britain, with forecasters saying there is a good chance that today will be the hottest day ever recorded, surpassing the previous record of 38.5 degrees.
Forecasters ascribed the current heatwave to warm air flowing across from Continental Europe, but added that its research showed "significant human contribution" in the hot spells of recent years because of carbon dioxide emissions.
The British Government issued a heatwave alert under a new system introduced after a 2003 heatwave killed more than 2000 people in Britain and 27,000 across Europe.
Temperatures reached 33 degrees across an area of central and southern England, 29.5 was recorded in Prestwick, near Glasgow, and 30 in Castlederg, Northern Ireland.
At a Buckingham Palace garden party yesterday, the Queen lamented the state of the lawns as 7000 guests mingled on the dried, brown grass.
Temperatures in many parts of the US also soared, breaking records and leaving residents cradling air-conditioners for comfort.
At New York's LaGuardia international airport, one of the main terminals had to be shut down after the power went out at 8am, leaving hundreds of passengers stranded as the temperature reached 37 degrees.
Strange sort of plan, however I just found it amusing that in England 38.5 Celsius and in the US 37.0 Celsius is causing so much concern and problems .... that is our normal summer here (and hotter in some parts of Aust).
Strange sort of plan, however I just found it amusing that in England 38.5 Celsius and in the US 37.0 Celsius is causing so much concern and problems .... that is our normal summer here (and hotter in some parts of Aust).
Well... This plan would not work in Australia in view of the long distances some people need to travel to go to work. Added to that, our useless public transport system. Under such a plan, our bus transit system and general transport system would be out of business in no time.
As for the temperature, it is what people are used to. Just got an email from my brother who is complaining about 32 degres. 24 degres in France and everyone heads for the beach. 24 degres in Australia and we celebrate the end of winter.
I did not had time to light the fire tonight. I am behind my keyboard with 11 degres. I bet that not to many of you could endure that.
Yeah I guess that is why it would work in England to an extent, heaps of people use Public Transport and the Country being roughly the size of Victoria, it would bode well for them ... I would be stuffed if it came in here ... work for myself and travel constantly, it is not unusual to drive 2 hours do some work and head back for another 2 our drive (though I run on LPG so cost is not as bad) ... had days where it is 4 hours there 2 hours work and 4 hours back as well, so yeah it would kill me if that carbon thing was in.
I very rarely put the heater on when at home (live by myself as well), see I do outdoor work (MATV, Satellite, Microwave Link System Installer), so most days I dress for the weather and after you have been on a roof or up a 50 metre pole all day the cold goes away, plus by the time I get home it is late, then by the time I cook dinner, do bookwork, prepare for the next day and etc, it is not really worth putting it on ... so I am usually just here in what I was wearing at work ... same for all seasons really, get accustomed to whatever the temp is really fast.
Only downside to the above is when you work in the city, fix some Mobile Phone Link on the Roof of say the Rialto In Melbourne, and head inside on and off to check the links/receivers/transmitters in there ... in winter you are dressed warm you go in and it is 30 Celsius inside ... in Summer you are dressed for that go inside and it is 18 Celsius inside. Get a few looks sometimes when you strip down in Winter to a T-shirt and etc from people in offices, then in Summer you get the same when you are throwing a jumper on, the contrast in Temps is a killer one minute in Winter it is 12 Celsius out, then 30 Celsius in, then back to 12 out again ... summer same thing 36 plus Celsius out, 18 Celsius in, 36 plus Celsius out again ... I catch so many colds all year round from stuff like that it is annoying.
A few global warming numbers that I find interesting.
Water vapour is responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which is vital to keep the world warm
If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time. (0oF to 60oF)
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man’s activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
These numbers are so small as to be insignificant. (Remember, to remove the % sign, move the decimal point 2 places to the LEFT. So 3.2% becomes 0.032, 0.12% becomes 0.0012)
Again, what was that number? 3.2% is the total CO2 put into the system by man. Therefore, 0.0012 X .49 = 0.000588 is that which the US puts into the planetary system.
0.0588% is America’s portion. 0.000588 thousandth of a percent.
Feel free to check the numbers if you don't believe me.
Lets be honest here. I believe in climate change, I just don't think man is the cause of that change. Sunspots and solar flares are shown to have a massive effect on climate. It is a theory that is gaining momentum in the scientific community. Have a look at a show called the great global warming swindle. It's interesting to note that countries like Africa are being kept in the dark ages because the U.N wants them to use renewable energy. In other words we are asking the poorest nations to embrace the most expensive technology. The misinformation is staggering on this subject.
I'm so sick of the naysayers on this, putting in their bunkum figures and data.
First I would love to check the numbers you post (I've seen them many times before) but you didn't give a source. Here are two sources for you that refute everything you say with just pure science.
This first site is run by some the world's leading climatologists and scientists, all respected and acknowledged in their respective fields. It contains mountains of scientific data on "man made" global warming. Just check out all the links down the right hand side.
This second site is the New Scientist’s forum for the perplexed on climate change. The New Scientist forum has a list of 26 climate change myths and a guide to assessing the evidence. The articles include lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.
You say the misinformation is staggering, but strange isn't it that 98% of the world's scientists are in agreement on this matter, as are most of the world's governments and their scientific departments (have a look at the US government department of meteorology, it fully backs man made global warming with tons of data and empirical evidence).
The only contrary evidence like the data you post is coming from a very small handful of scientists, who when checked on are found to be sponsored by energy companies. In fact one of the largest pushes against man made global warming is by the very same company that sided with the tobacco companies in putting out scientific misinformation that smoking wasn't harmful. Says it all doesn't it.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
I'm so sick of the naysayers on this, putting in their bunkum figures and data.
So you have a closed mind on anything that refutes man made global warming. Like I said I believe in global warming I just don't think man is the cause of this warming. Why is the data bunkum. This is the kind of intolerance I expected when somebody doesn't agree with the polemic of man made global warming.
Quoted from boomslanger
The only contrary evidence like the data you post is coming from a very small handful of scientists, who when checked on are found to be sponsored by energy companies. In fact one of the largest pushes against man made global warming is by the very same company that sided with the tobacco companies in putting out scientific misinformation that smoking wasn't harmful. Says it all doesn't it.
Why compare this to smoking. It irritates me when you compare something like scientific debate on climate change with tobacco. All I can say to scientists being paid by energy companies is that it is a product of the boomslanger spin on everything I don't agree with factory. I am sure these scientists would love to know they are getting rich but the reality is they are not. Do you think I am being paid by energy companies? Where's my paycheck.
I agree that more sustainable ways should be found for industry and providing base load electricity, but that isn't what the debate is about. I think we all want to work towards greener technology, but some of the crazy things I am reading in the paper are really quite odd. Its quite amusing to hear environmental journalist's predicting how many meter's the sea level is going to rise next week. Do you know that 1400 years ago temperatures were higher than today and CO2 levels were higher as well. Man had nothing to do with it then. Watch the great global warming swindle. If I can watch Al Gore's flick then you should make time to see this. Also the data I quoted was by meteorologist Augie Auer. Sorry I should have posted that info.
Oh come off it TPO, the overwhelming science in probably the most concurrence by the science community since evolution became mainstream and the big bang was proven is for man made global warming. The science and empirical data all points to it in droves.
I bought up tobacco because there was a doco on SBS not all that long ago which showed how man made global warming was trying to be debunked by exactly the same tactics that the tobacco companies used to deny their product was harmful. And guess what, the very same PR and media company that tobacco used to muddy the waters is being used by the polluting energy companies today in muddying the waters on man made global warming, that is why I mentioned tobacco. The head of that PR firm said that the whole idea was to get an industry sponsored scientist, just like the one whose data you stated, to come up with anything that is plausible, and as soon as the science community debunks it to come back with exactly what you did, an attack on the attacker, not defending the flawed contrary science. Do this over and over until people actually think that the flawed science has merit because it is being attacked and debated. It is exactly the same tactic that creationists use to have their religion put into science classes and debated in science communities.
As to the 1400 year ago thing, that is all explained in detail, I'm sick of posting graphs and data showing the cycles, peaks and troughs with the current rapid rise having no equivalent in all of earth's history, not even for massive volcanic eruption events, and it exactly coinciding with industrialisation, going up exponentially in lock step with the expansion of industrialisation. If you want to ignore that evidence then there is nothing I can do to ever convince you.
OK you don't believe it, go ahead it's no skin of my nose, but I'm so so glad that people like you are in so small a minority world wide.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
I've been having thoughts about this and from the start have jumped on one side too easily and just as easily dismissed the other side. Even though the overwhelming majority say man made global warming exists and is extensive because TPO has given me thought for pause, I'm now chasing up the other side of the story. Visiting those sites and the reading the scientists that state it is natural and not man made, or that it will not be disastrous for mankind of the environment and we can continue to land clear at increasing rates and pollute at will.
So for now I hold judgement and apologise for being too abrupt in this emotive matter.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
I've been having thoughts about this and from the start have jumped on one side too easily and just as easily dismissed the other side. Even though the overwhelming majority say man made global warming exists and is extensive because TPO has given me thought for pause, I'm now chasing up the other side of the story. Visiting those sites and the reading the scientists that state it is natural and not man made, or that it will not be disastrous for mankind of the environment and we can continue to land clear at increasing rates and pollute at will.
So for now I hold judgement and apologise for being too abrupt in this emotive matter.
No need for apologies. I find it quite admirable that you are willing to take in both sides of the story. Take a look at the figures relating to sunspots/solar flares and climate. It is very interesting. It shows that C02 levels follow climate, not change it.
All I want is for both sides to be heard before judgment is made. If at the end of your fact finding you still find the science and math don't fit then that is fair enough. I definitely want a greener planet and I too worry about the environment. I sponsor orangutans at the Adelaide Zoo, and I am shocked at what is happening to their native habitat in places like Indonesia and Borneo.
I believe that sunspot/solar flare hypothesis has been dealt with quite a while ago and has been proven to be wrong. I will attempt to chase up the papers for it again, but the fact it is not raised anymore against the man made theorems I think shows it doesn't stand up. I need a counter hypothesis that can absolutely stand up to the man made data that is now in such a large majority around the world.
Look at the Hook theory Andrew Bolt attempted to debunk in his newspaper column by using the papers of one climatologist who was the only one of 80 who had an opposing view. After a tirade of anti-Global Warming vitriol using this information, Andrew Bolt had to back down (but never apologised) when the author of that paper came out and stated his data was incorrect and he had retracted it years ago. He now generally agreed with the view that current climate change is mostly man made . This is what we are up against in attempting to debunk the man made hypothesis, which has so much solid science supporting it, and through pure science and facts has disproven every attempt to put up contrary hypotheses.
Below is the type of hard data that has to be refuted, as it shows a direct link to the exponential and rapid increase in world temperature to the exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation. This is unprecedented in world history at the rate in which it is occurring, so what has caused this unprecedented rapid rise in temperatures?
Look at the time scales, they are in 100,000 year increments. Then look at what happens roughly every 100,000 years. Starting with a spike there is a gradual decline to a bottoming out that is almost the same until the most recent one where it really bottomed out.
Then look at the detail of the 350000+ year cycle, it is much less than the others. The older the data the less detail from the paleoclimatic data. But notice how every cycle has nearly the same spikes and troughs throughout.
The entire pattern is mostly cyclical and predictable from ever 100 millennia to the next. So now look at the data from just the last 2000 years here:
Click on the enlarged map and see the sudden upward surge from around 100 years ago to absolutely shoot up in the last few decades. This is not part of the previous 100,000 year cycles and is the fastest incline recorded outside a cataclysmic disaster.
Now look at the last 140 years, which is from the time thermometers started to be used to measure temperature, and what they call anomalies and departures.
What is currently happening is not part of any long term normal cyclic pattern and can be directly tied to the increase of green house gases since the industrialisation of the world by man.
This post contains attachments; to download them you must login.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
and if you cant be bothered with those check out this one on how the momentum is changing with many scientist's who now question the data on CO2 driven climate.
Give me some time to look over the data you have provided. I may have to get back to you at a later date as I am going to Melbourne this weekend. Also I will source some graphs on cosmic rays and their relation to climate. Cheers, and I will chat next week.
The great climate swindle is coming to the ABC in July (more than a coincidence for the government and ties right in with Howard's beliefs). The usurping of the ABC by the Howard government is complete with the sacking of more ABC stalwarts including one who bought B1 and B2 to the ABC and made it lots of money. Of course all to be replaced with Howardites to get the ABC ready to turn in Fox News if Howard wins the next election.
Ok first to this one: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece. It is one I have read before and as you notice he offers no science, data or facts whatsoever, just lots of localised anecdotes and exceptions. The colder East Antarctica has already been fully and logically explained, and actually confirms Global Warming because it was predicted by the modelling, as were other contrary weather events in different parts of the globe. You cannot take isolated areas and micro climates in isolation and then apply that to debunk a model that is on a world wide scale. The contrary argument must also apply world wide, which so far not one anti-global warming theory has been able to do.
Also his sun explanation has been refuted quite convincingly by many papers and scientists so far. Notice yet again he does not give one source of data or counter maths and modelling to support his argument.
Quoted Text
What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.
That statement is a lie and a report has fully refuted it. There are whole sections (as can be seen by the graphs and data I previously posted) on normal alternate warm and cold periods. What is happening now is not normal and has never occurred in earth's history. That is fact and it just happens to exactly coincide with human industrialisation and has increased exponentially in lock step with the increase in industrialisation.
This bloke lost me when he tried to debunk 90% with an example of a failed completely unrelated science from 1958. That is how he opened and it immediately screams obfuscation and misdirection. Nigel Calder was editor of New Scientist from 1962 - 1966 and has been going contrary to it ever since. I will chase up the info but I'm sure he is funded by an energy company, Exxon or Mobil from memory.
Sorry TPO anything that bloke states isn't going to wash. this is what he wrote in 1976 in a book about the weather and the science about it. bold mine
Quoted from Nigel Calder
Though weather affects people in drastic ways, it can also affect the human race in simpler ways. It has been noted that the human immunity system is affected in extreme heat or cold. Mood (psychology) can also be affected by weather, hence the common scene of heavy downpour in Soap operas when a person cries. Weather, in its power, however, cannot affect a person's performance, at work, school or play. It is the person's own mindset that leads to poor performance during times of bad weather, heat, cold or rain. Another cause of human impact on the weather is global warming. Global warming is the rise in the earths' temperature which is slowly causing the glaciers to melt and the average temperature to become warmer each year.
Isn't it strange that he only changed recently from the view that global warming was man made just when he got a sponsorship from an energy company, which he states has not influenced him in any way.
What the critics of man made global warming are now doing is attacking the huge majority who are scientifically proving it exists by not refuting the science, but by attacking the scientists and organisations like the IPCC. You will see time and time again they claim that because they are on the opposing side they are shouted down and lambasted, unable to have their side heard. In fact most of the time that is not true, it all just misdirection.
The polluting industries are attempting to muddy the waters as much as possible to delay the restrictions that they know are coming, but in the meantime they want to continue their huge profits for as long as possible before that happens. That was stated by the PR firm they are using to fight the global warming pundits in the SBS doco.
I will get round to the other links later but I need more than suppositions and tenuous attacks on the global warming side to convince me its not happening.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Your second link is more promising but as I was going through it (only scratched the surface so far) lo and behold there was a reference to ExxonMobil and US senators telling them to stop muddying the waters on climate change. The article couches it in a way that it is extraordinary that the US government is telling a company what to do, so that ExxonMobil must be right.
How come ExxonMobil keeps popping up?
Apart from that, so far astrophysicist Nir Shariv has been the closest to the money as a contradiction to CO2 being a problem and that the sun may be responsible for global warming. I do have a problem that he is not a climatologist, hydrologists or a paleoclimatologist but an astrophysicist whose main expertise is in meteorites, and that the other scientist mentioned in the multi-article report of the Canadian Post is a statistician, again with no background in climate or paleontology. In fact Shariv bases his supposition on the premise that meteorites sustain 15% more cosmic ray damage so he "thinks" the earth should be the same.
I do have one huge problem with his supposition that a doubling of CO2 will have little or no impact on climate, at most 0.5°C by 2100 is very hard to believe when you look at the massive increasing figures for CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. They are talking about billions of tons increase each year. Paleontology has proven that in ancient history global warming has been directly related to massive CO2 build ups, and in fact the oil we now pump out of the ground was created by atmospheric CO2 saturation (Crude on the ABC the other night explained it). So pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere does heat the globe, that is historical fact and we are doing it at the fastest rate in earth's history and in huge quantities, so how can it have no effect? Is it just going up there and disappearing or turning into something benign?
Someone has to prove to me that pumping billions of tons of extra CO2 each year into the atmosphere has no effect and not the guff that doubling it by 2100 will only increase the temperature by 0.5°C, when in fact we are more than doubling the amount and even a 1°C increase causes polar ice melts and increased severe hurricanes and droughts.
Now a lot of the stuff you are bringing up has been raised by Andrew Bolt, but this blog (even if he is an Andrew Bolt hater) shows clearly how the deniers are tying to muddy the water and misrepresent the facts. http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/05/whatits-2007-surely-not.html
That is what I am trying to get around to be convinced that global warming is not man made. Until I can find credible science that does not have ExxonMobil behind it then I'm not going to be convinced, especially since a great chunk of the scientists and governments who have published the science for man made global warming have nothing to gain by doing so, and in fact many governments and their countries have lots to loose and many scientists can make more by jumping onto the ExxonMobil bandwagon.
I love this comment because it is so true:
Quoted Text
Sunspots and cosmic rays don’t invalidate climate action
"Don’t send in the brigade to control the bushfire, it was caused by lightning-strike, not an arsonist."
That’s the message of those promoting The Great Global Warming Swindle, which promotes the sunspot-and-cosmic-rays conjecture.
Even if it were correct about the cause, it doesn’t deny the phenomenon, and therefore doesn’t invalidate the need for action.
So even if Shariv is 100% right, we should be doing everything in our power to stop global warming by the sun or prepare for the upcoming disasters because of it instead of just going on as though nothing is going to happen. Either scenario, sun or CO2 is going to cause massive and extreme weather events. But you notice that Shariv does what everyone of the other deniers is doing, he states that we should do nothing about climate change until he can get all the science together and prove his theory one way or the other. Everyone (the 10%) of those fighting against the man made warming theory all ask for a decade or two of delay for the theories or science to be firmly established. Too much of a coincidence for me that the polluting industries are also asking for a decade or two before any restraints are put on them to cut emissions.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
A few graphs for you to have a look at. I had a quick look at your post and was impressed you took the time to look at the links. Gotta go because I haven't packed for my flight tomorrow and my wife may erupt. Global warming will be the least of my worries if I don't get my arse into gear.
This post contains attachments; to download them you must login.
You post graphs but no sources. Without the data and theory behind the graphs they are meaningless on their own.
Anyway I have had a look at you link about scientists changing their mind and have already debunked a couple. Here's another one, Ballamy.
Quoted Text
It appears that the botanist, David Bellamy’s source of evidence was from a website Iceagenow.com, that was constructed by a man called Robert W. Felix to promote his self-published book about “the coming ice age”. It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the “ice age cycle”; and that “underwater volcanic activity, not human activity, is heating the seas”. Felix is not a climatologist, a vulcanologist, or an oceanographer, he is apparently a former architect.
...and recently he stated he got it wrong on ice cap cooling.
Quoted Text
"He has since admitted that the figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times on 29 May, 2005 [2] that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming"
When I first came across this I thought I had finally found something that discredits the man made theorists and initiates, but alas the very last paragraph about natural causes (volcanology being one) has lost me (volcanoes have been definitively proven as not being contributors to global warming and CO2 ages ago.
This paper also claims the data has been deliberately skewed to match man made CO2 due to industrialisation being the cause of global warming, and it looks very convincing. This more than anything shows the complexity of the matter and how both sides can really muddy the water and put out what appears to be very credible data and discredit currently held popular scientific belief, but alas this paper has been discredited itself, and turns out to be mostly wrong in it claims of deliberate shifting of data to match the theory and in its facts on ice cores.
So you see how complex and unfathomable this debate can be, so I'm not going to pursue it anymore. There is just too much crap out there for ordinary pundits to be able to follow with any sort of real enlightenment. Both sides are doing it but I must say from what I have found so far those against global warming are far more prone to putting out data that on the surface looks very plausible and makes the man made side look like they are falsifying data, but are more often exaggerating or falsifying facts . Also it is more often than not that those on the negative side have special interest groups behind them, like a very plausible paper that was released on sun spots being a cause that turned out to be sponsored by the British Automobile Association.
What I've decided to do is like any good democracy is to go with the majority. Currently 90% of the science and scientists plus governments are saying that global warming is man made, so that is the situation as far as I'm concerned, and that is the assumption we should act upon. When more than 50% of the scientists and governments start to come out and say it is natural then that is the way I will fall and take action on that.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Science – Evidence that Earth's climate is undergoing significant, and in some cases alarming, changes has accumulated rapidly during the past three decades. The probability is extremely high that HUMAN generated greenhouse gases, with carbon dioxide the major offender, are the primary cause of well documented global warming and climate change today.
Quoted Text
Sun 'not to blame' for global warming
The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study shows.
Researchers from Germany, Switzerland and the United States found that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 per cent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.
"Our results imply that over the past century climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the sun's brightness," US National Centre for Atmospheric Research spokesman Tom Wigley said.
Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 degrees Celsius rise in temperatures over the past century.
A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.
"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature of evidence about the sun from satellite observations since 1978. Sunspots observations
They also found little sign of solar warming or cooling when they checked telescope observations of sunspots against temperature records going back to the 17th century.
They then checked more ancient evidence of rare isotopes and temperatures trapped in sea sediments and Greenland and Antarctic ice and also found no dramatic shifts in solar energy output for at least the past millennium.
"This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, told Reuters.
Many scientists say greenhouse gases might push up world temperatures by perhaps another three degrees Celsius by 2100, causing more droughts, floods, disease and rising global sea levels.
He said a "Little Ice Age" around the 17th century, when London's Thames River froze, seemed limited mainly to western Europe and so was not a planet-wide cooling that might have implied a dimmer sun.
Global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.
"Overall, we can find no evidence for solar luminosity variations of sufficient amplitude to drive significant climate variations on centennial, millennial or even million-year timescales," the report said.
Solar activity is now around a low on the 11-year cycle after a 2000 peak, when bright spots called faculae emit more heat and outweigh the heat-plugging effect of dark sunspots.
Both faculae and dark sunspots are most common at the peaks.
Still, the report also said there could be other, more subtle solar effects on the climate, such as from cosmic rays or ultraviolet radiation. It said they would be hard to detect.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
I personally believe it's happening and man made with just enough doubt to listen to the sceptics and contrary science. I just cannot believe you can pump 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, up from 4 billion a decade ago and predicted to double in the next decade, without it doing something. It just doesn't disappear now does it?
My other view on this is that even if it's all baloney, and we have been fooled by the biggest scientific scam ever, so what? In the mean time we have cleaned up the planet, and heaven knows it needs it, plus we have spawned a whole new slew of beneficial technologies and economies that will put us in good stead well into the future.
So for mine it is a great opportunity to turn this garbage pile we are turning the earth into around, so that has to be a good thing.
Why don't your parents believe it and what arguments do they use? Try pointing them here:
Mt Everest climate crisis Nicola Boden May 31, 2007 12:00am
A NEW picture of Mt Everest reveals the devastating effects of climate change on one of the world's most ecologically sensitive and important regions. The image, taken last month, portrays a dramatically different landscape to shots taken in the 1960s.
In a picture taken in 1968, the Middle Rongbuk glacier skirts through the mountain valley with the peaks above thickly covered with snow.
But almost exactly the same shot taken this year by a Greenpeace team reveals much barer peaks and a scarcely visible glacier.
And the environmental pressure group is in no doubt that the radical changes to the area are due to the effects of climate change.
"The degradation of the Everest environment and glacial retreat is, Greenpeace believes, a direct result of climate change," a spokeswoman said.
A team travelled to Everest last month to see the Middle Rongbuk glacier and compare its current state to how it was according to pictures taken in 1968.
But the rapid deterioration and collapse of the mountainside meant the group could not even reach the same point the original photo was taken from to make an exact comparison.
The picture had to be taken approximately 1km away from the 1968 viewpoint instead because the glacier has retreated so much in the past 40 years.
Greenpeace estimate it has moved back by 2km, raising fears millions will soon be at risk because of the Rongbuk glaciers' important role as a water source to China and India's rivers.
Other images released by the group show the state of a glacial lake on the Tibetan Plateau, which formed between 2005 and 2006 when the glacier there collapsed and melted.
Rising temperatures caused a huge snow avalanche in April 2004, blocking the valley river and creating a dam against which the lake developed.
Images taken in June 2005 show the full lake with the pressure building on the dam.
Less than a year later, it had grown so much that the dam burst and pasture and farmland below was flooded leaving the lake bed brown and the water dried up to a trickle.
Another two pictures show how the Halong glacier in the A'nyemaqen mountains one of the Yellow River source glaciers has shrunk between 1981 to 2005.
The Greenpeace team found that the glaciers of the Yellow River source have shrunk by 17 per cent in the past 30 years and warns that this trend could leave the region without glaciers by the end of the century.
The Yellow River is called China's "mother river" and provides water to more than 120 million people, as well as catering to agricultural, industrial and electrical demand.
Carbon trading is reaching all levels of business, large and small. There are carbon brokers, carbon trading exchanges, even carbon futures, writes Wendy Frew.
For every coffee, muffin or bottle of water sold by Antonino Iaccarino at his North Sydney cafe, E Vero, a few cents goes to fund an energy efficiency project somewhere else in the city.
Iaccarino, who sub-leases in a large office building, can do little to cut his greenhouse gas emissions because he cannot change the source of electricity powering his business.
Instead, he is doing his bit for the environment by proxy. Or at least, his customers are. Iaccarino gives the money he raises from his environmental levy to one of the many companies setting up in the business of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The Carbon Reduction Institute uses funds raised by businesses such as E Vero to buy and install compact florescent lightbulbs in buildings that use a lot of electrical lighting, such as hotels. The deal is priced to cover the lightbulbs, their installation, and a little extra for the institute.
The cut in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by the new lightbulbs is recognised by the NSW Government in the form of carbon certificates. Those certificates, or credits, are worth money.
In exchange for the energy-efficient light bulbs, the hotel signs away its carbon credits to the institute.
The cafe is now "carbon neutral", the hotel has cut its electricity bill and the institute has made a tidy profit.
Welcome to the brave new world of carbon trading, a commodity market that could one day be the world's biggest. This is the market that promises to plant the trees, cap landfill gases, or improve energy efficiency in developing countries to neutralise the pollution emitted by our cars, our homes and our plane travel. It's also the market that will constrain the ability of power plants and heavy industry to pollute.
The World Bank says the global market in carbon trading tripled to $US30 billion ($37 billion) last year. About $US25 billion of that was in a compulsory emissions trading scheme set up two years ago by the European Union.
It is also the market that the Prime Minister, John Howard, is tentatively dipping his toe into. On Thursday he received a report from a taskforce of government officials, and mining, banking and power industry executives, recommending "a cautious approach to the adoption of [emissions cuts] targets approached internationally". It says Australia needs a domestic emissions trading scheme but does not expect it to start until after 2012.
I response to Mt Everest's receding ice caps I thought I would enlighten you to the fact that Mars is experiencing the same phenomena. Either the cause is solar or the aliens are going to have to reduce their CO2 levels.
Read the second page where that is explained and is not related to Earth's warming. Also read one of the links I have posted which mathematically and empirically shows that solar flares or cosmic ray activity can only account for at most a 0.5% increase in Earth's temperature. As Mars hasn't got a thick atmosphere as a blanket then maybe this might be slightly higher for it.
There is also the case on Earth where there are many glaciers that are actually expanding, not shrinking and some that are forming again having gone millennia ago. This is all thoroughly explained by the global warming models and fits in perfectly with the theories, which is why so many of the world's scientists and leaders now have no doubt that man made global warming is occurring.
It matters little what the contrarians now say as George Bush has not only come on board, but is planning to take over the whole climate change agenda at the end of this year, including taking over Howard's stance as well. It doesn't matter what his motives are, most likely the same as Howard's, an unbeliever who has become so unpopular because of their inaction that this is a last ditch to win some popularity and go down positively in history. The fact is that there are going to be whole scale reductions of green house enforced on the world in the not to distant future can only be a good thing.
I would still like to know where 6 billion tons per annum of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, pumped into the atmosphere by man goes if it is harmless? An amount that is up from 4 billion tons 40 years ago and is expected to go up to 8 billion tons in the next 10 years, and then to 12 billion in the 10 years after that. So that is a man made increase of 2 billion over the last 40 years and then an increase of 6 billion more in the next 20 years.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Wow! I just watched the documentary I've been hearing SO much about - 'An Inconvenient Truth'. It was a spare of the moment thing but I've heard so many people talk this up I thought - what the heck, lets see what they're all on about.
I've walked away having learnt so much - feeling stupid for not watching it sooner and angry nobody connected the dots to shout it until now! If you haven't watched this movie/documentary (whatever) by now I say - right now, run down to your video store - chuck it on and listen! You will be astonished and thankful for being ever the wiser... well, I am.
I honestly don’t know where to put this thread and I'm sorry to all the suzi's of this site that are going to get angry and want to move it but I just want to talk about it!! As soon as it finished I got up, walked around my house and switched off power points I just wasn't using - I checked my washing machine to find I already have a water wise front loader. I have a water saving shower head (another tick for me! lol) but I want to go out and buy those great new longer lasting (although more pricey) light bulbs. I'm looking at changing to green energy (although currently an extra $1 a day, I believe) but Origin doesn't look to provide it to QLD yet?!? ... little lost on all that.
I just can't believe what we have done to the earth in SUCH a short amount of time! What sticks in my head are all those little facts and when they stated that for the first time ever polar bears are now dying not being able to find land. My jaw was dropped open the whole time!!
.. Okay, I'm going to stop talking now in hope that it’s not just me that has seen this documentary - that there are others on this forum with something to add.
Thanks for the heads up on this documentary lurveit! I am so saddened by the state of the world and the way we have treated this beautiful Earth. Whate men have a lot to answer for. Natives of most countries knew to take care of the land. They never took more than they needed and treated the Earth and it's creatures, with reverence. An example of white man's greed and stupidity was when they invaded the American Indian's lives and almost decimated the Buffalo into extinction! Claiming and plundering everything along the way. Our race for a more comfortable lifestyle.... electricity, moving vehicles of all kinds, running water etc has led to a world depleted in natural resources and the extinction of animals There is a thread called 'what is the world coming to' regarding Global Warming which I think I shall move this to. Cheers SuziH
Awwww c'mon Dara, a minimum of 6.6c and Maximum of 13c does not a freezing day make Where my eldest sister lives in Orange NSW it was min of 2 max of 7 today and in Cowra where my Mum and 2 other sisters live it was 5.7 min and 7.7 max last weds of last week It's nice to have the odd really 'cold' day up here, it makes us remember it IS winter and it kills the germies
Suzi at my house it is like 11 degrees it is fine but at my school like on top of a hill with very drafty corridors and no shelter it was cold. Certain areas you had full on wind , the leaves were flying everywhere and it was freezing!!!!!
our weather in qld has been crazy!! lol.. i'm scarrrr'd!
dara you HAVE to watch 'an inconvenient truth' and once done try and get your dad too also. I honestly believe if you watch this and can STILL sit back and say its all crock - it says a lot more about you as a person than it does the scientists of the world.
I'm still not doing all I can for the world - I wish I could find ways to continue helping right now without it needing my wallet to do so.
Suzi at my house it is like 11 degrees it is fine but at my school like on top of a hill with very drafty corridors and no shelter it was cold. Certain areas you had full on wind , the leaves were flying everywhere and it was freezing!!!!!
I remember attending high school in huge open draughty buildings on top of a hill also and that was in Cowra NSW before we were allowed to wear slacks/long pants to school! We wore 2 pairs of tights under our uniforms and 2 pairs of socks and our feet and legs were still cold. I can sympathise with you over that Dara I have already seen an 'Inconvenient truth' I realised when I began watching the DVD recently! I watched it on SBS or the ABC whenever it was shown when Al Gore was visiting last year, was it? At Cowra where my Mum and 2 of my sisters live it was 6-8 degrees yesterday and in Orange where my eldest sister lives it was 2 to 4 degrees!! Nothing unusual for down there though
I stumbled upon this the other night and found it an interesting article seeing as it is written by Patrick Moore who is co founder and former leader of Greenpeace. Nuclear power has a social stigma attached to it and a lot of things simply aren't true. Interested to hear your thoughts
Nuclear Energy Provides Practical Baseload Power by Patrick Moore
When I helped found Greenpeace in the 1970s, my colleagues and I were firmly opposed to nuclear energy. But times have changed. I now realize nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy growing demand for energy.
Nuclear power plants are a practical option for producing clean, cost-effective, reliable and safe baseload power.
Nuclear energy is affordable. The average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States is less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric.
Nuclear energy is safe. In 1979, a partial reactor core meltdown at Three Mile Island frightened the country. At the time, no one noticed Three Mile Island was a success story; the concrete containment structure prevented radiation from escaping into the environment. There was no injury or death among the public or nuclear workers. This was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States. Today, 103 nuclear reactors quietly deliver 20 percent of America's electricity.
Spent nuclear fuel is not waste. Recycling spent fuel, which still contains 95 percent of its original energy, will greatly reduce the need for treatment and disposal.
Nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to terrorist attack. The five-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment vessel protects contents from the outside as well as the inside. Even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode.
Nuclear weapons are no longer inextricably linked to nuclear power plants. Centrifuge technology now allows nations to produce weapons-grade plutonium without first constructing a nuclear reactor. Iran's nuclear weapons threat, for instance, is completely distinct from peaceful nuclear energy generation, as they do not yet possess a nuclear reactor.
New technologies, such as the reprocessing system recently introduced in Japan (in which the plutonium is never separated from the uranium) can make it much more difficult to manufacture weapons using civilian materials.
Finally, excess heat from nuclear reactors offers a practical path to the 'hydrogen economy', and can address the increasing shortage of fresh water through desalinization.
A combination of nuclear energy, wind, geothermal and hydro is the most environmentally-friendly way to meet the world's increasing energy needs. Nuclear power plants can play a key role in producing safe, clean, reliable baseload electricity.
An advisor to government and industry, Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, and chair and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. in Vancouver, Canada. He and former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy.
I have always felt nuclear energy is the way to go and it is very safe, especially these days. I would not mind if a nuclear plant was built near me, accidents are pretty damn rare and if this world is going to do something about where we get our energy from it had better start considering nuclear energy in a positive light. People need to be informed instead of resorting to a knee jerk reaction at the mention of the word 'nuclear'.
Teddy bear teacher Gibbons from UK charged in Sudan
Article from: Herald Sun
A BRITISH teacher detained in Sudan after her class named a teddy bear Mohammed was charged yesterday with insulting Islam. Gillian Gibbons was also charged with inciting hatred and religious contempt.
She appeared in court yesterday. Reporters said she was not handcuffed.
If convicted, Ms Gibbons, 54, could face 40 lashes, a fine, or one year in jail.
"Khartoum North prosecution unit has completed its investigation and has charged the Briton under Article 125 of the criminal code," Sudanese agency SUNA said, quoting a senior Justice Ministry official.
A Sudanese prosecutor-general said Ms Gibbons could expect a swift and fair trial.
In London, the Foreign Office confirmed Ms Gibbons had been charged and officials said Foreign Secretary David Miliband was calling in the Sudanese ambassador.
"We are surprised and disappointed by this development and the Foreign Secretary will summon as a matter of urgency the Sudanese ambassador to discuss this matter," Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman said.
"It is now a police case and the temptation to treat it as a media sensation should be resisted," the Sudanese embassy in London said.
Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "This is a disgraceful decision and defies common sense."
Embassy officials and a colleague visited Ms Gibbons for more than 90 minutes.
Ms Gibbons was arrested after parents complained about the bear being named after the Prophet Mohammed.
Teachers said she had asked her class of seven-year-olds to choose a name for the bear, and 20 of 23 voted for Mohammed.
~ Reuters
How peaceful and tolerant of them. Especially the protesters who were holding machetes asking for her head.
Isn't anyone outraged by this.
The next time someone tells me Santa visiting at kindergartens is offensive, I am going to give them an explosive roundhouse. I think it is about time the Muslim world got together and had a chat.
The kids she teaches came up with the name. If they are Muslim children they should know better too.
I think it is funny that the most popular name used in the Islamic world is Mohammed. In their prisons, 1 in 4 prisoners will have that name. Some of them are in prison as murderers and other serious criminals.
Where are protesters asking for 'their heads' for bringing the Prophets name into disrepute?????? They 'bear' his name in shame (unlike a cuddly teddy)
Where are protesters asking for 'their heads' for bringing the Prophets name into disrepute??????
Saw them on the telly last night. Sorry i dont have any pictures but I'm sure if you google the sentence "slime of humanity" there will be pictures of them. Seriously, these guys would riot if they got the wrong pizza topping.
Quoted from D_b8_R
They 'bear' his name in shame (unlike a cuddly teddy)
Lucky it wasnt Humphery. I dont know how they would react to a bear who doesnt have any trousers.
Freed teddy bear teacher in good spirits December 04, 2007 06:35am
TEACHER Gillian Gibbons is in "remarkably good spirits" as she prepares to fly home to Britain after more than a week in Sudanese custody. After speaking to the 54-year-old mother-of-two, UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband welcomed President Omar al-Bashir's decision to officially pardon her today.
Gibbons was finally released into the care of the British embassy after being jailed for insulting Islam.
The dramatic move came after 48 hours of difficult negotiations between British parliamentarians Lord Ahmed of Rotherham and Baroness Warsi with officials in Khartoum.
Miliband said he had spoken to Lord Ahmed and Mrs Gibbons within the last hour.
"She is in remarkably good spirits," Mr Miliband told reporters.
"She was a little overwhelmed by the amount of coverage she understood this case had received and proud of the way her family had stood up over the last week."
Miliband said he wanted to thank the many diplomatic and consular staff who had helped secure her release.
Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir pardoned Gibbons yesterday after she was jailed for 15 days for insulting religion and she will be released in an hour.
"She was pardoned thanks to the mediation of Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi," Mahjoub Fadl Badri told AFP.
A Sudanese court on Thursday jailed Gillian Gibbons to 15 days in prison for insulting religion by naming a teddy bear after the Prophet Mohammed at the exclusive English school where she taught in Khartoum.
Two British Muslim peers, Lord Nazir Ahmed and Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, from the upper house of parliament, were today meeting Beshir at the Republican Palace after flying to Khartoum in order to secure a pardon.
The arrest and jail sentence of the 54-year-old mother of two sparked outrage in Britain and a diplomatic crisis between London and Khartoum, further straining relations already frayed over nearly five years of war in Darfur.
... it is about time the Muslim world got together and had a chat.
I think it's about time people realised it's NOT the Muslim world, it's a handful of extremists and that the vast majority of those who follow Islam are peaceful people.
I think it's about time people realised it's NOT the Muslim world, it's a handful of extremists and that the vast majority of those who follow Islam are peaceful people.
Remember it was the local authorities that arrested her not extremists. The mere fact she was arrested in the first place stinks.
She may have been freed in good spirits, but she wasn't arrested in them.
Quoted from SuziH
Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir pardoned Gibbons yesterday after she was jailed for 15 days for insulting religion and she will be released in an hour.
"She was pardoned thanks to the mediation of Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi," Mahjoub Fadl Badri told AFP.
Well lets all fall to our knees. Negotiations must have been tough and emotionally draining. Fat cat and Humphery were sent also in a special envoy along with kofi Annan to make sense of the crime and to negotiate the dangerous Gillion Gibbons( aka the teddy bear night slasher) release. Agro and Winky dink have been unavailable for comment. Paddington Bear said it was very out of character for Mrs Gibbons and Mr Bear( Mohammad) to act this way.
As a special condition of her release she has promised never to attened the teddy bears picnic again.
I was outraged with her lenient sentence and I immediately burned Big Ted effigy's in my street.
yes what a joke ! the kids named the teddy, and arnt they all Muslim ? she went there to help, if they named the teddy after the pope , we would have not herd about it and no one would be offended, but if we were, OMG , then we would have been told to get over it .
Television Doesn't Rule My Life .... But .....
Wouldn't the World be a far better place if everyone just thought like I do
yes what a joke ! the kids named the teddy, and arent they all Muslim ? she went there to help, if they named the teddy after the pope , we would have not herd about it and no one would be offended. But if we were, OMG , then we would have been told to get over it .
I think it's about time people realised it's NOT the Muslim world, it's a handful of extremists and that the vast majority of those who follow Islam are peaceful people.
The majority might also be silent until they become extremists at the beck and call of radical leaders who tell them what to think, do and who to get rid of. We need to hear their voices shouting condemnation of what the radical leaders spout. *so far so silent*
The majority might also be silent until they become extremists at the beck and call of radical leaders who tell them what to think, do and who to get rid of...
and that may also never happen, nor is extremism reserved for the world of Islam. Anyone who purports that is simply ignorant.
and that may also never happen, nor is extremism reserved for the world of Islam. Anyone who purports that is simply ignorant.
Extremism is the domain of all cultures who aspire to spread their borders to neighbouring countries. Mr Bush is viewed as an extremist too.
The PR problem Islam has is that the pictues of ordinary citizens of the Sudan taking to the streets in protest and calling for the firing squad death of a teacher over the 'Teddy Bear' incident last week. The leaders of that rabble are and were not extremists but ordinary people who have been fired up to feel aggrieved by the hard liners who always stay in the background, pushing others to do their dirty work. Christendom had the same PR problems back in WW1 and WW2.
The majority might also be silent until they become extremists at the beck and call of radical leaders who tell them what to think, do and who to get rid of. We need to hear their voices shouting condemnation of what the radical leaders spout. *so far so silent*
I too am waiting for the day. Maybe they are condemning it but we cant hear over all the apologists.
Quoted from Paula
and that may also never happen, nor is extremism reserved for the world of Islam. Anyone who purports that is simply ignorant.
Albeit long winded this article is a shinning example of the inefficiencies and defunct like nature of the UN. It is consumed with personal agenda and ruled by kleptocrats. You will notice in the article Libya is chairing a conference on anti racism. This is second only in its oxymoron status to the time Zimbabwe chaired a conference on human rights. A gradual erosion of credibility in the UN has reached a point now where it is impossible to take them seriously any more.
Quoted Text
Canada: U.N. Anti-Racism Conference a 'Gong Show' of Hatred, Bigotry By Terry Trippany | January 28, 2008 - 15:33 ET
The mainstream media turned a deaf ear to Canada's conservative government as they withdrew support for a United Nations led anti-racism conference on charges that the conference itself is a "a systematic promotion of hatred and bigotry". One Canadian official called the U.N. Durban II conference a "gong show" as Ottawa withdrew all support in protest of the escalating rhetoric against Israel. This of course comes as no surprise considering that the United Nations, in all its limited wisdom, elected Libya to chair the conference, Cuba as the vice chair and named Iran to the organizing committee.
The so-called Durban II conference “has gone completely off the rails” and Canada wants no part of it, said Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity.
“Canada is interested in combatting racism, not promoting it,” Mr. Kenney told The Canadian Press. “We'll attend any conference that is opposed to racism and intolerance, not those that actually promote racism and intolerance.
“Our considered judgment, having participated in the preparatory meetings, was that we were set for a replay of Durban I. And Canada has no intention of lending its good name and resources to such a systematic promotion of hatred and bigotry.”
Not one mainstream media newspaper outlet bothered to cover Canada's walk out with any in depth analysis despite this being an election year where foreign policy in the Middle East, the politics of race and racism and the war against radical Islam are key issues. Instead most outlets deferred to the brief feeds of the AP, Reuters and the AFP to provide scant mention. The New York Times managed to miss the story altogether; feed or otherwise.
Notable events that escaped the scrutiny of the majority of the selectively scrutinizing members of the news media:
* The next two key preparatory meetings have been scheduled on the Jewish holidays of Passover and Yom Kippur. This is a deliberate move by organizers to prevent Israeli officials from participating. * Iran has been named to the organizing committee despite statements from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that repeatedly calls for the destruction of Israel. * The U.N. Human Rights Council was created to reform the United Nations Commission on Human Rights yet 14 of it's 15 resolutions charging human-rights violations were against Israel according to statements by Canada. * The United Nations held its first World Conference Against Racism in Durban way back in 2001. That conference was marred by anti-Semitic bigotry that eventually led the United States Israel to walk out of the conference. Some non-governmental organizations had been reported to have posted pro-Hitler posters yet each of the non-governmental organizations that were invited to the 2001 conference have been invited back to Durban II.
The most complete accounting I could find came from the Canadian Press as found in the Globe and Mail.
The 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban turned into “a circus of intolerance,” Mr. Kenney said.
One government official on Wednesday called the conference “a gong show.”
Arab and Muslim countries ganged up in their criticisms of Israel. Israel and the United States walked out in protest; the Liberal government of the day remained in an effort to decry the attacks.
With Libya elected to chair the next gathering, Cuba appointed vice-chair and rapporteur, and anti-Israel rhetoric and actions building, Mr. Kenney said his government was left with no choice but to abandon the preparatory process for the followup meeting.
B'nai Brith Canada applauded the government, saying Durban I “degenerated into a hate-fest directed at Israel and the Jewish delegates attending the conference.”
The group's executive vice-president, Frank Dimant, said Ottawa has acted “clearly and decisively by refusing to participate in a venue that pays lip service to anti-racism but in fact provides a platform for the promotion of hatred and bigotry.”
Mr. Kenney noted important preparatory meetings have been called on Jewish high holidays, preventing Israeli officials from participating.
The UN gave planning oversight for the conference to its Human Rights Council, which has targeted Israel in 14 of its 15 resolutions charging human-rights violations in its first two years of existence.
“We've tried to influence it so that we would not revisit the overt expressions of hatred which came out of the original conference,” said Mr. Kenney. “But we unfortunately ran into a brick wall.
“The process has been hijacked by those who would seek to replay the terrible experience of the first Durban conference.”
Iran was named to the organizing committee, Mr. Kenney noted.
“This is a country whose government has publicly expressed its desire to eliminate the only Jewish country in the world,” he said.
Furthermore, all of the non-governmental organizations invited to the first conference have been invited back to the second, including those that were at the “forefront of the hatred,” some of which posted pro-Hitler posters at the 2001 gathering.
The statements by the Canadian government are damning indeed. They come at a time when liberal Democrats are calling for U.S. law to be diluted by international standards. These standards would no doubt be influenced by the same world wide bodies that allow human rights abusers and state sponsors of racism and terrorism to prop up their anti-Semitic views with the legitimacy of world governments behind them. That news is as important today as it should have been in the not so distant past when such actions were ignored to the detriment of millions who died to prevent this from ever happening again
The Iran / Israeli conflict IS a thorn in the side of UN officials.
Tonights news (Wed 30th) is that Iranian President has said he wants 'Filthy Zionists' gone.
Partial quote from linked item: " I advise you to abandon the filthy Zionist entity which has reached the end of the line,'' Mr Ahmadinejad today told world powers in a speech in the southern city of Bushehr carried live on the state television"
Does he expect that Israelis are just going to say . ."OK then . . he wants us to go . . so we will move out" . . NOT LIKELY.
The UN will become much more serious in its work when it truly fears it will become redundant through non-success. It will grow teeth when it sees a way to shut the warring parties down . . and the way is becoming more evident by the day. As a political entity itself, it will advocate political answers . . but see religion as the culprit of all crime (rightly or wrongly) and move to shut it all down. The religious card has been played in the linked debate already as the Jews see the dates of conferences for peace listed as occuring on their main religious holidays . . that will be a stir they can't ignore.
That image is of a gay pride thing. WHY would you bash people for that? Annoying, maybe, but OMFG
THE head of next year's Eurovision Song Contest in Moscow has moved to explain why he had said 'no' to helping organisers of a gay pride march in the city timed to coincide with Eurovision.
A series of claims has since appeared on websites across Europe suggesting boss Svante Stockselius said 'no' to becoming involved, but in an exclusive interview with the Manchester Evening News, he said that he had no intention of becoming embroiled in the political agendas of other organisations.
The controversy was sparked after gay pride organisers decided to hold a march in Moscow next May, which occurs on the day of the Eurovision Song Contest final.
The announcement of the march came days after Eurovision dates were announced by the European Broadcasting Union, and are likely to have been engineered by gay pride organisers as a head on challenge to the capital's Mayor Yuri Luzjkov, who has refused to sanction previous marches, which he is alleged to have described as 'satanic'.
The previous marches resulted in violence from extreme right wing factions on participants, who claimed police stood by while thugs attacked them.
The Eurovision Song Contest is well known to have a large gay following from across Europe, and undoubtedly pride organisers in Moscow were hoping to use blanket of Eurovision as an attempt to kick start future marches in the city.
In a recent interview with Mr Stockselius, Nikolai Alekseev, the head of the Russian Pride organisation QX claimed Eurovision boss Svante Stockselius had said: "The other project you are referring to (gay pride march) is in no way connected to the Eurovision Song Contest (and) I do not see any possibilities for us to get involved".
Mr Stockselius told the M.E.N. "There has been a lot of misunderstandings and misquotes. "We are just now, again, starting the huge task of organising the biggest TV entertainment shows in Europe. Any other event, not connected to the Eurovision Song Contest, must take care of their own business.
"We are, as every year, discussing possible security circumstances with the host broadcaster and the authorities in each host country and among many other things we also demand a security guarantee for the delegations, journalists and fans that will arrive to our event.
"We are also used to the fact that other parties (commercially, interests etc) are trying to connect their own purposes with the Eurovison Song Contest in order to get coverage and promotion in the media."
I would argue that Stockselius's efforts to get guarantees of safety for fans will ultimately assist the marchers of any planned event
After all the last thing the Russian authorities want are images of people being attacked because of their gender being beamed across the world.
US Lawmakers battle to save bailout deal September 27, 2008 - 7:55AM
US lawmakers have grappled to set aside political divisions and the distractions of the White House race to hammer out a $US700 billion ($A839.53 billion) Wall Street bailout and reassure jittery markets.
Regrouping after fractious late night talks, the Senate's Democratic majority leader, Harry Reid, vowed Congress would stay in session, and not adjourn as planned on Friday ahead of the November 4 elections, until the unprecedented economic package is agreed.
But stock markets, nervously watching the protracted week-long congressional talks, took another battering as investors remained unconvinced by pledges that a deal was in the works from lawmakers and President George W Bush.
Bush early on Friday urged all sides to work together, after convening talks on Thursday at the White House where a putative deal collapsed in the face of the revolt from his own party in Congress.
"The legislative process is sometimes not very pretty, but we are going to get a package passed. We will rise to the occasion, Republicans and Democrats will come together and pass a substantial rescue plan," Bush said in a televised statement.
Reid vowed lawmakers would work through the weekend to try to put something in place before markets open again on Monday.
"We're going to get this done and stay in session as long as it takes to get it done. We'll work with the president, modify his plan to make it better for taxpayers and homeowners," he said.
He added there was no reason why a deal could not be reached before Monday, as four lawmakers - two from each party representing the House and the Senate - were left to handle the nitty-gritty of the negotiations.
Reid blamed the Republicans for delaying tactics.
A deal was almost there on Thursday "and then guess who came to town", Reid told reporters after Republican White House hopeful John McCain had dashed back to Washington, putting his campaign on hold to take part in crisis talks.
"The insertion of presidential politics has not been helpful. It's been harmful," the Democrat said.
Senior Republicans, however, defended McCain's role as they presented a rival package designed to take the burden off taxpayers and put it back on private investors.
"I think McCain's role has been entirely constructive. He's had suggestions. We're taking these into account and we are going forward," said Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell.
The McCain campaign said there had been no deal until the Arizona senator arrived in Washington to bring lawmakers together, and that now he was optimistic that there had been significant progress.
"Both parties in both houses of Congress and the administration needed to come together to find a solution that would deserve the trust of the American people," the campaign said in a statement.
"And while there were attempts to do that, much of yesterday (Thursday) was spent fighting over who would get the credit for a deal and who would get the blame for failure."
McCain later headed for the first presidential debate of the US general elections in Oxford, Mississippi, against Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama.
Overnight there was more bad news for the economy as the savings and loan giant Washington Mutual collapsed, closed by the government and sold to JPMorgan Chase for $US1.9 billion ($A2.28 billion), the largest bank failure in US history.
The new Republican plan proposes that the government set up an expanded insurance system financed by banks to rescue individual home mortgages, so that taxpayers do not have to fund the bailout.
In a letter to Democratic House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Republican leader John Boehner said the alternative proposal "reflects the core free-market, pro-taxpayer principles of our party".
But Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke have already rejected the insurance plan as unworkable, and say only the government has the clout to execute the system-wide rescue.
Queen to ask for more money to run Buckingham Palace Rebecca English September 27, 2008 12:00am
QUEEN Elizabeth II plans to ask the UK Government for more money to run her household after being hit by rising costs, officials have confirmed.
Like homeowners across Britain, the monarch has faced escalating prices for fuel, food and home repairs.
These have seen the cost of maintaining her position as head of state almost double.
But her taxpayer-funded Civil List payment of 7.9 million pounds has not increased in 20 years - and is not due to be renegotiated until 2010.
The shortfall has left what has been described as a "black hole" in Buckingham Palace's accounts of several million pounds each year and led to claims that the Queen will be unable to balance her books if she is not awarded extra funding within the next three years.
Senior officials have firmly denied the Queen is facing a "cash crisis" but confirmed this week that they would have to ask for an increase in Civil List funding.
A royal spokeswoman said there was nothing that could "remotely be described as a black hole in the books" and rejected the claim the Queen would face ruin without government intervention.
"We are never complacent, but we have managed our finances well and are ahead of the game at this point," she said. "When the time comes we will, of course, be hoping for an increase - after all, there are few people in the country who haven't had a pay rise for 20 years."
Officials said the Queen's accountants had squirrelled away 35 million pounds for a rainy day. Although this is down to 26 million pounds, aides claim there is enough in the pot to "draw down from" until they are able to re-negotiate their government hand-out.
"Like so many we have been hit by rising costs, but fortunately our reserves adequately cover the extra expenditure we are now facing," a Buckingham Palace spokesman said.
"We will have enough money to keep going until we can open negotiations about a new Civil List payment."
The Queen receives the majority of her funding through the Civil List as well as "grants in aid" for the upkeep of palaces and travel. She also benefits from a portfolio of investments managed by the Duchy of Lancaster.
About 70 per cent of her Civil List revenue is spent on staff salaries. The rest goes on entertaining. The current figure of 7.9 million pounds a year was agreed in 1990 and Tony Blair's government refused to sanction an increase 10 years later.
The Treasury would not be drawn yesterday on whether the payment would be increased.
Whitehall sources privately argue, however, that there is simply not enough money to go round.
It is also understood that the Queen's Keeper of the Privy Purse, Sir Alan Reid, has asked the Government for VAT exemption on payment for services such as building works in line with government departments.
Two senior MPs who sit on the Public Accounts Committee insisted they had no sympathy for the Queen's plight and called for the Royal Household's accounts to be publicly audited in the same way as government departments.
From Main Street to Skid Row September 27, 2008 When the piper of gloom demands repayment for excesses, the American dream turns to a nightmare, writes Gerard Wright.
Advertisement M ark Ancona is an environmental remediation specialist, a bloke who tears things down - carefully. A couple of months ago, he drove into a lush and relatively isolated area in Palm Beach County, Florida, to inspect a warehouse his company was contracted to demolish.
When Ancona entered the dilapidated, long-abandoned warehouse - its windows broken, the roof sagged and leaking - he was confronted by a parable of modern America. Thirty people - seven families - were living in the dankness. One man, in his mid-30s, told Ancona: "Six months ago, I was buying $5 coffees at Starbucks. Now I'm tearing pages off the Yellow Pages to use as toilet paper."
The poor have always been among us. In Los Angeles, 90,000 downtown homeless are an everyday sight. What is different now is the sudden poverty washing over what was once the middle class, the bedrock of the US economy and the very embodiment of the American dream. Last-resort cheap motel rooms; lies to educators so that children get to stay at the chosen school by subverting the strict residency rules.
Welcome to the new America, the land of buy now, pay later, where the size 32 belt must now fit the size 40 waist that never knew anything but good times, easy money, and abundant choice - the NINA loan (no income-no asset), the pick-a-payment mortgage, where you decided the size of the first instalment. It's not just an implosion of Wall Street banks and insurance companies, but a sudden unravelling of lives. "This is an American nightmare," says a Democrat congressman, Keith Ellison. Seven million American mortgagors face foreclosure. Another five million have no equity in their homes, or owe more than their homes are worth. Fifteen per cent of Americans - 46 million people - are without health insurance. Personal bankruptcies are up by 47 per cent in a year.
World focus may be on the US financial meltdown but Britain is taking a hit, too. Robert Wainwright and Paola Totaro report from London.
It was evening, Black Monday September 15, and the financial world was reeling over the news of Lehman Brothers' collapse. Damien Hirst, the enfant terrible turned billionaire of the British art world, was ensconced in the exclusive Groucho Club, playing snooker with a couple of mates. At the club - one of London's best-known haunts of the creative and the filthy rich - Hirst was seen stepping away regularly from his group, which included Rolling Stones guitarist Ronnie Wood.
Trademark geek glasses squared firmly on his nose, Hirst spoke intently into his mobile phone as barely a kilometre away in Mayfair the first of 223 lots of his work went under the auctioneer's hammer at Sotheby's.
That night, London witnessed a bath of such extraordinary excess that it is bound to enter the annals of the City's economic and cultural history.
Amid front-page headlines of Lehman's collapse and the inevitable spread of the economic meltdown from the US to Europe, London also awoke to the news that Hirst's work had yielded a staggering £111 million ($245 million) for 218 pieces, among them his signature butterflies and dot works.
The most expensive ones bore the most telling titles - The Golden Calf, The Kingdom and Fragments of Paradise - and Oh S hit, which fetched £2.3 million and featured a Merrill Lynch employee suspended in a tank of formaldehyde.
Logged
. .not anywhere does it say quakes are becoming more prevalent . . just that they are making the news lately. . . and if you make light of the effect they have had on India. Pakistan, Africa and many other countries just this year. . leaving MILLIONS dead/homeless (just tell them your story) . . then you are more devastating than any earthquake. . you remain a spiteful ignorant pratt!. 
and in Cowra where my Mum and 2 other sisters live it was 5.7 min and 7.7 max last weds of last week 
(unlike a cuddly teddy) 
