JIM BALL... AUSTRALIA'S NUMBER 1 OVERNIGHT RADIO PRESENTER CAN BE HEARD ON 2UE AND ASSOCIATED NETWORK STATIONS 2CC, 2AY, 2BS, 2LT, 2NM, 2ST, 3YB, 4BC,4BU, 4KZ, 4RO
Dr David Evans, BSc, BE-EE, MA (Sydney)MS-EE, MS-Stat, PhD EE (Stanford) was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005
(21 July 08) “....Since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming..... The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming.... There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.... there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming...” No smoking hot pot, David Evans, The Australian “...The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them... This point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming... Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.... The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming....What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise....”
Killing Jobs to Save the Climate
(21 July 08) “....The price of European emission permits is rising so rapidly that German companies are threatening to leave the country. Thousands of jobs could be lost. And the environment may, in the end, be no better off.... "If that's the shape the trading will take, we will simply move our cement operation to Ukraine," a cement factory manager shouted into the lecture hall. "Then there won't be any trading here, nothing will be produced here anymore -- the lights will simply go out here.".....The businessmen's anger surprised the emissions-allowance trading experts. They had invited industry representatives to a relaxed forum at the Environment Ministry's office in Bonn. They wanted to present international developments in the carbon trading market. However, the mood in the German business world has soured -- managers no longer have the stomach for academic lectures. The reason is that emissions allowances are already burdening some companies that require a lot of energy for production purposes.....” Killing Jobs to Save the Climate Spiegal OnLine “....In the last 12 months alone, the price for the right to pump a ton of carbon into the atmosphere has shot up from €23 ($36.5) to nearly €30 ($47.6), according to the European Energy Exchange in Leipzig. This hike of around 30 percent has a direct effect on the electricity production of power companies.... this price hike would drive up the marginal cost of energy from an old brown coal power plant by the entire price of carbon. For modern natural gas power plants, it would increase prices by a third. Energy company RWE, which is based in the German city of Essen, reckons it alone will have to pay €9 billion ($14.2 billion) for its own electricity production, which it, of course, will pass on in higher electricity prices. So carbon trading will have a direct impact on which countries firms chose to locate in.... Still, the really tough measures of the European emissions trading scheme have not yet been put into force. Only from 2013 -- the start of the third trading period -- will prices shoot
(18July 08) Next time you see or hear a talking head, Climate Change scare merchant going on about how Climate Change is the cause of more hurricanes, you may like to refer them to the graph Mighty Winds The graph skewers and torpedoes the argument that Global Warming/Climate Change is causing more hurricanes. As you'll see, The worst decade was 1941 to 1951, the next worse was 1901 to 1911 and the 3 rd worse was 1891 to 1900. The decades from 1961 to the present are way down the list. (Original article in the Wall Street Journal on July 1 st 2008)
Pyrrhic victory, Brendan Nelson, The Australian
(12July 08) “....Last Friday, Ross Garnaut, the Prime Minister's principal climate change adviser, admitted: "Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels." This week, he said: "Even the whole of the developed world getting its act together and reducing emissions won't solve the problem." Remember, too, that when the Clinton administration signed the Kyoto Protocol, it was then vice-president Al Gore who warned that the US could only ratify the agreement once "key developing nations participate". This is not a controversial point; it's merely a self-evident truth.. the Coalition has been criticised for failing to give bipartisan support to the Prime Minister's plans to introduce an emissions trading scheme by 2010. But why should we make an unconditional commitment to what amounts to an unprecedented imposition on the Australian economy...To unconditionally support the Government's position, before it is known and without examining what it would cost or how it would work without a global agreement to cut carbon emissions and in such a short timeframe, might win applause from those who claim moral superiority in this debate. But as the alternative government, we have a duty to subject the Government's agenda to extensive scrutiny..... Australia must not forsake its competitive advantage for no significant impact on global emissions.....” Pyrrhic victory, Brendan Nelson, The Australian “.... Our greenhouse gas emissions represent just 1.5 per cent of global emissions. Domestic action to reduce emissions, while important, will have little meaningful impact if not part of wider international action.... if the Prime Minister can botch something as simple as the means test for solar panels on roofs, throwing that industry into an unprecedented downturn, he needs to be very careful about implementing an environmentally credible and economically responsible scheme that will shape future generations..... Kevin Rudd insists we have no alternative but to lead the world, but the fact is no international consensus exists....Most of Europe has failed to meet its mandatory carbon targets under the Kyoto Protocol, despite already having introduced an ETS. China is putting up a new coal-fired plant nearly every week, raising emissions that would overwhelm whatever reductions Australia makes.... Unless the nations responsible for the biggest emissions commit to effective plans to reduce them, Australian unilateral action would inflict collateral damage on the wider economy in lower growth and higher prices up and down the energy chain. It would lead to the export of our energy-intensive jobs to those nations that do not take action to reduce carbon emissions, thus worsening the emissions problem....”
The Cynical Politics of Global Warming and Its Hobgoblins
(12July 08) “...Cynical politics” may be a redundancy, but it is hard to imagine a more cynical political issue than global warming ( GW )....In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, Al Gore called for a “wrenching transformation of society.” Leftists, with their elitist penchant for social engineering, didn 't need any convincing..... Enlisting the help of the media was easy (apocalyptic fantasies are sure ratings winners), but getting enough scientists on board was trickier.... Right from the outset, the GW cult (like other illiberal movements, such as communism and fascism) had to resort to the “big lie” technique to make it appear that the science of GW was settled..... As senator, and then vice president, Gore used his power to channel money toward those who “played ball” and away from those who doubted GW .....” The Cynical Politics of Global Warming and Its Hobgoblins “.... The Kyoto Protocol—which called for the developed nations to curb their CO2 emissions—was the international front of Gore's GW agenda. For the last seven years, Gore's media allies have denounced George Bush for “killing” Kyoto. Poppycock! The history is this: after the Clinton administration signed Kyoto, the senate voted 95-0 against implementing Kyoto's provisions because they were slanted so unfairly against the United States..... Kyoto's agenda wasn 't to save the world, but to shackle economic activity in this country through curbing energy consumption. It's easy to understand why foreign economic competitors would want this, but why would Gore and American liberals want to do this to the American people? The answer is simple: the lust for power and importance. Remember: control energy and you control people.... There are signs that Gore's movement is losing credibility. An English judge ruled that Gore's award-winning film “An Inconvenient Truth” may not be shown in U.K. schools without disclaimers and the inclusion of opposing opinions, on the grounds that it is a work of political propaganda, and not scientifically sound....”
(1July 08) “....The writings of Canada's most talented journalist, Mark Steyn, went on trial in Vancouver on Monday, in a case designed to challenge freedom of the press. It is a show trial, under the arbitrary powers given to Canada's obscene "human rights" commissions, by Section 13 of our Human Rights Act.....I wrote "obscene" advisedly. A respondent who comes before Canada's "human rights" tribunals has none of the defences formerly guaranteed in common law. The truth is no defence, reasonable intention is no defence, nor material harmlessness, there are no rules of evidence, no precedents, nor case law of any kind. The commissars running the tribunals need have no legal training, exhibit none, and owe their appointments to networking among leftwing activists.... Take this in: A group of Islamist fanatics, claiming to speak for every Muslim in Canada, charged Maclean's magazine with "spreading hatred against Muslims" for having printed a lucid and reasonable (if controversial) excerpt from Steyn's bestselling book, America Alone.....” The show trial begins , David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen “....This is a news story that should be on the front page of every newspaper in Canada, every day until it is resolved.... A farce, but a farce that has huge consequences for Canada: for by such methods free speech and free press are being snuffed out. The Left may think they have found the ideal method to silence anyone who challenges their insane, "politically correct" ideas, but have instead created a monster that can as easily eat them next....While media attention to Mark Steyn's show trial is inadequate, it is nevertheless the best publicized case ever to come before our "human rights" bureaucracies. Most of the victims of these neo-Maoist tribunals have been "little people," with nothing like the resources Maclean's magazine has put in play to defend itself and Steyn, and no media reporting whatever. They have been persecuted, stripped of their livelihoods and savings, demonized among their neighbours, made to endure humiliating "re-education" programs - without lawyers, without assistance of any kind -- all for exercising rights that any Canadian would have taken for granted a mere generation ago....”
(29June 08) “...How does a modern, plural democratic society deal with the desire of some minority groups to observe cultural norms at odds with the law of the land? It is a question that has been asked with increasing force in recent years..... this idea of equal treatment has itself come to be seen as racist. Rather than demanding that people be treated the same despite their differences, multiculturalists demand that people be treated differently because of them, hence different laws for different groups.... democracy requires that whatever our loyalties or beliefs, we abide by the decision of the majority and not opt out every time we disagree....What is unacceptable is for religious or cultural groups to call on the power of the state to help enforce their own codes of speech and behaviour....” Law and the wives of others , The Australian “... Many multiculturalists retort that there is nothing universal about modern universal norms. They are Western interventions and should not be imposed upon non-Westerners...British sociologist Tariq Modood defines equality as "not having to hide or apologise for one's origins, family or community but requiring others to show respect for them, and adapt public attitudes and arrangements so that the heritage they represent is encouraged rather than contemptuously expect them to wither away " . Under this view, polygamy is an ancient Muslim tradition going back to Mohammed....When Australian Muslims demand the right to polygamy, they are not seeking to return to an authentic past. After all, an authentic Muslim past would contain no notion such as rights that are a modern invention. Rather, what they are seeking to do is to use an invented past to shape the present. The demand for legally recognised polygamy is an attempt to reshape the relationship between Muslim communities and the state and to assert the right of so-called community leaders to define the needs of their community. That is another reason it should be resisted....”
(21 May 08) “....It was only to be expected that former US vice-president Al Gore would give this month's Burmese cyclone an apocalyptic twist.... Apocalyptic beliefs have always been part of the Christian tradition. They express the yearning for heaven on earth, when evil is destroyed and the good are saved. In their classical religious form, such beliefs rely on signs and omens, like earthquakes and sunspots, which can be interpreted, by reference to biblical passages, as portending a great cataclysm and cleansing. Thus, apocalyptic moments are products of a sense of crisis: they can be triggered by wars and natural disasters.....In his latest book, Black Mass , the philosopher John Gray discusses how political doctrines like Marxism colonised the apocalyptic vision in prophesying the destruction of capitalism as the prelude to the socialist utopia. But political messianism was an offshoot of 19th-century optimism. With the collapse of optimism, contemporary apocalyptic belief lays more stress on catastrophe and less on utopia....For example, in his book Flat Earth News , the investigative journalist Nick Davies reminds us of the millennium bug panic. Newspapers everywhere carried stories predicting that computer systems would crash on January 1, 2000, causing much of the world to shut down. The subtext was familiar: those who live by technology will die by it.....” The Apocalyptic Mind , Robert Skidelsky, Guardian “....Misreporting of science is now so routine that we hardly notice it. Faith-based science seems a contradiction in terms, because the scientific worldview emerged as a challenge to religious superstition. But important scientific beliefs can now be said to be held religiously, rather than scientifically.... This is the second doomsday scenario of recent decades, the first being the Club of Rome 's prediction in 1972 that the world would soon run out of natural resources. Both are "scientific," but their structure is the same as that of the Biblical story of the flood: human wickedness (in today's case, unbridled materialism) triggers the disastrous sequence, which it may already be too late to avert. Like Biblical prophecy, scientific doomsday stories seem impervious to refutation, and are constantly repackaged to feed the hunger for catastrophe....The danger is that we become so infected with the apocalyptic virus that we end up creating a real catastrophe - the meltdown of our economies and lifestyles - in order to avoid an imaginary one. In short, while a religious attitude of mind deserves the highest respect, we should resist the re-conquest by religion of matters that should be the concern of science.
(20 May 08) “.....We're afraid of ozone and CO2. We're afraid of smog and cigarette smoke. We're afraid of Republicans because they are warmongers, and of Democrats because they are in utter denial of the real world. We're afraid the earth is warming -- or freezing. Our bee populations are now collapsing . A new kind of voracious ant is invading. Only 20,000 polar bears are left in Alaska, way down , from, oh, about 20,000 previously.... We're afraid of drilling for too much oil. But we're also afraid of pumping too little oil. We could switch to nuclear-powered electric energy, like the French have done , but that word "nuclear" just turns people off. Nuclear plants might just go up in a mushroom cloud some day, or so the naïve believe. We could exploit our huge coal reserves, but coal looks dirty . See the pattern? It sounds like omniphobia to me, the fear of everything . Omniphobia was never seen before in the annals of medicine, at least not before the most media-maddened society in history. (That's us.) But you can't miss it today. Omniphobia is all around us, and it'll get us in the end....” The Omniphobia Epidemic , James Lewis, American Thinker “....Let me add a new phobia for your personal delectation. Remember, CO2 is what you breathe out. Oxygen is what you breathe in. We know that CO2 will destroy the earth through fire and ice, according to the celebrated scientist Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. But did you know that long before we burn, a hundred years from now, innocent little oxygen will kill you? It's a fact.....Unfortunately, with every breath you take you get more oxygen, and make more free radicals.... Oxygen isn't the safest molecule in the world. It's practically the scariest.....So what can we do? We are not supposed to breathe out because we're polluting the planet with CO2. We're not supposed to breathe in, because we're putting killer oxygen into our bodies. We can't pass gas, because methane is a greenhouse gas. We can't eat meat because animal protein is destroying the earth. And we can't plant and eat veggies, because trillions of plants around the globe just keep on putting out ... more oxygen .....”
A complete list of things caused by global warming
All on 0.006 deg C per year!
(6 May 08) “….A Chief doctor at a major hospital reveals how our frontline medical system is in chaos. But many don't care, he says, until they need emergency treatment. I work in a public hospital emergency department, so that means any time you are in my part of the world, you are potentially my patient – you, your family, your friends. Tomorrow could be the day that a bad thing happens to you and your life is changed forever. That heart attack you knew was coming sooner or later, the crash on the freeway, the toddler found face-down in the swimming pool. Tomorrow, you could be rushed to my hospital – and I'll be doing my best to help you….My team and I save people's lives for a living. We are good at it, and enjoy it….So what isn't good? Put simply, our emergency departments – the place every ambulance rushes to – are already clogged with people. You'll notice that from the time you arrive. It may be some time before we can find a space for you. Only the sickest people get immediate attention: the ones who can't breathe, the ones who are unconscious. If that's you tomorrow, I'll see you as soon as you arrive and I'll use my skills and experience to stop you from dying, work out what's wrong with you, give you the immediate treatment you need and then move you on to another doctor who specialises in your kind of problem….” I will be your doctor , Sunday Mail “…As your doctor, I warn you that when you come to my emergency department tomorrow your experience may not match All Saints with a neat solution after 47 minutes plus ads. I will do the best I can to keep you alive and get you where you need to be. That's all I can do….Politicians and powerbrokers: I am your doctor, too. I know you have private medical cover; I know you have a good GP and other specialists who look after you well. But tomorrow it may be you who collapses while walking the dog, it may be you collected by the BMW that lost it on the corner, it may be your child who is hurt on the school excursion…No one is going to check for a private health insurance card. They'll bring you to me and I'll be your doctor then. How prepared and capable do you want me be?To all of you who are my patients: I am doing the best I can under the circumstances. I can't save everyone. I can't be right every time. I won't be able to get to you as quickly as I would like, and nowhere near as quickly as you would like…..And please be understanding. It's hard enough keeping you alive without being abused while I'm doing it…..
The “B” Vocabulary of the EU: Brussels bans Jihad
Note, This story is from April 2007, and gives some context to the story below
(4May 08) “....The Daily Telegraph has published a story that should concern anybody who believes that by pussyfooting around we will remain in denial about the threats facing Europe and the West.... Last year, this website already reported about the EU's attempts to control language and introducing a ‘B vocabulary.' As Orwell wrote : “The B vocabulary consist[s] of words which [have] been deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only [have] in every case a political implication, but [are] intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.” ..... The Daily Telegraph on 12/4/2006 responded to a Reuters report that the EU is developing this ‘non-emotive' Lexicon....” The “B” Vocabulary of the EU: Brussels bans Jihad , The Brussels Journal “....The Lexicon seeks to restrict and replace terms such as Islamist, fundamentalist & Jihad. The words ‘Islamic Terrorist' would apparently be replaced with ‘Terrorists who abusively invoke Islam'. However the Lexicon is being kept secret from journalists. It appears the EU not only wants to restrict freedom of speech but to restrict information on the restrictions it imposes...What is particularly concerning is the way that the British authorities have responded to the story. What, pray do they mean by this: “Details on the contents of the lexicon remain secret, but British officials stressed that it is there as a helpful aid ‘providing context' for civil servants making speeches or giving press conferences....”
Investigative Project Releases Government Memos Curtailing Speech in War on Terror
“He who sets the definitions, determines the perceived solution” (and therefore the outcome) Joseph Goebbels (attributed to)
(4May 08) “....The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is refusing to identify the "influential Muslim Americans" and "leading U.S.-based scholars and commentators on Islam" who met with Secretary Michael Chertoff in helping shape a softer approach to government lexicon about terrorists and their ideological motivations.... DHS and the State Department's Counterterrorism Communications Center each issued reports urging government employees to avoid words like "jihad," "mujahedeen" or any reference to Islam or Muslims, especially in relation to Al Qaeda. The Investigative Project on Terrorism is making the documents available for the first time here and here .... Among the recommendations not reported previously: "The experts we consulted debated the word ‘liberty,' but rejected it because many around the world would discount the term as a buzzword for American hegemony." and "The fact is that Islam and secular democracy are fully compatible....So America, after serving for more than two centuries the sanctuary for huddled masses yearning to breathe free, is being asked to minimize liberty against fanatics bent on a global religious state. The memo doesn't offer examples to show where Islam and secular democracy have reinforced each other, or explain how Shariah law, the imposition of religion into state affairs, is "fully compatible" with secular democracy... In other writings, MPAC's more nuanced approach involves accepting, not isolating, terrorists. It repeatedly has lobbied to remove Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hizballah from the U.S. list of designated terrorist groups......” Investigative Project Releases Government Memos Curtailing Speech in War on Terror , Steve Emerson “....One prominent Muslim American who wasn't consulted is physician M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. In response to an e-mail from the IPT about the memos, Jasser said the suggested changes could diminish American understanding of the ideological motivations behind those who threaten our security: In Muslim majority nations the radicals call themselves Muslims, Islamists, and Jihadists in Arabic and every other language with little time spent admonishing society not to call them what they call themselves..... For the USG to paternally dismiss the self-described nomenclature of ‘jihadists' and "Islamists" is to in fact embark into a realm which really is an internal struggle within the consciousness of the Muslim community. We should call the terrorists what they call themselves. Once any Muslim, let alone non-Muslims, begins to determine who is and who is not qualified to define ‘jihad', ‘Muslim', or ‘Islam' they are creating a clergy and a ‘church' with a communication and excommunication process. That is exactly what the likes of Bin Laden and other radical Islamists want. "Words matter," the DHS report says. They sure do. That's why hiding the very language and ideological justification used by terrorists from the American people is misguided at best.... mainstream Muslims, shouldn't need us to serve as language police to protect them from those who use their religion to terrorize the world...”.
(4May 08) “....The Saudi Government - largely through its embassy - is believed to have funnelled at least $120 million into Australia since the 1970s to propagate hardline Islam, bankroll radical clerics and build mosques, schools and charitable orgnisations. But the Saudi cash that has flowed into Australia, that also allegedly has paid the allowance of hardline Canberra cleric Mohammed Swaiti, who has publicly praised jihadists, is dwarfed by the $90 billion Riyadh is believed to have pumped into promoting Islamic fundamentalism internationally.....Last September, weeks before Bush talked up Saudi Arabia's role in curbing radicalism and terror, his Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Stuart Levey, accused Riyadh of failing to prosecute terrorism financiers. "If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia," Levey said. "When the evidence is clear that these individuals have funded terrorist organisations, and knowingly done so, then that should be prosecuted and treated as real terrorism because it is."......In Australia, Griffith academic Mohamad Abdalla has defended his decision to seek the grant, saying the money came with no strings attached. But critics, including the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's national security project director Carl Ungerer, say this is naive and the money is part of a Wahhabist "hearts and minds" campaign being waged by the Saudis in the Muslim world.....” Saudis' secret agenda , The Australia “....Last month, Britain's MI5 director-general Jonathan Evans reportedly told his Government that the Saudi Government's multimillion-dollar donations to universities, along with other funds from Muslim organisations in countries such as Pakistan, had led to a "dangerous increase in the spread of extremism in leading university campuses". His warning came just days after the Higher Education Funding Council for England held a special meeting to confront fears that Saudi donations were unduly influencing universities.... (Steve) Emerson, best-selling author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, says Saudi Arabia should be allowed to bankroll religious initiatives in the West only when it becomes open to the idea of religious reciprocity. "I think there should be a law requiring religious reciprocity for funding coming from regimes that restrict religious freedom on their soil," he says. "Saudi Arabia does not allow the practice of any other religion, bars the operations of churches, confiscates Bibles ... As such, there should be laws passed by Western governments prohibiting Saudi donations to universities until and unless Saudi Arabia operates a pluralistic religious environment....”
(30 Apr 08) The title says it all. Climate Change|Social Change If you ever had any doubt that the climate change debate has absolutely nothing to do with climate change and everything do with social change, this 8 minute series of vox/pops will confirm your suspicions and beliefs. As somebody once said “ Freeze or Fry, the problem is always International Capitalism and the solution is always International Socialism”. Note the Geelong school teacher, Sue Bull, filmed in the school ground from the immediate ambience and environment. What messages are being conveyed to your kids?? How are their minds being massaged and messed with??
(29 Apr 08) “.....The enactment of a bill of rights in Australia will allow the judiciary to determine policy which will undermine personal freedoms within the community, not enhance them... A bill of rights transfers decisions on major policy issues from the legislature to the judiciary. It is not possible to draft a bill of rights which gives clear cut answers to every case. No right is absolute...... A bill of rights can only be interpreted by the courts by balancing rights and interests. Most modern bills of rights include a clause recognising that rights may be subject to such reasonable limits ``as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society''. This is clearly a policy decision, not a judicial issue....These issues need to be considered in the context of community views. They are issues which should be decided by an elected parliament whose members are responsible to the people. They are not decisions that should be made by judges, who are not directly accountable to the people.... A bill of rights will only have the effect of turning community values into legal battlefields, eventually undermining the strength of those values. Our view of the importance and priority of rights changes over time. A constitutionally entrenched bill of rights freezes those priorities at a point in time. If a bill of rights had been included in the Commonwealth Constitution in 1901 it would most likely have enshrined the ``White Australia policy.....” The rights and wrongs of law , Bob Carr, former Premier NSW, Daily Telegraph, August 2001 “....The ``right to bear arms'' is a right under the United States Constitution that many see as the root of that country's tragic shootings. It is not enough to say these rights can be changed by a constitutional referendum. We know referenda are rarely held and are rarely successful..... A QUICK look at the law reports of Canada and New Zealand will show the extensive use of their respective bills of rights in litigation. It will also show the primary use of a bill of rights is in relation to criminal appeals. In New Zealand, in the first seven years after the Bill of Rights Act was enacted, it was invoked by the accused in literally thousands of criminal law cases, a large number of which were appealed to the Court of Appeal... the Bill of Rights continues to be routinely used as a ground for attempting to overturn the admissibility of evidence, including confessions, evidence obtained under search warrants and breath testing of drunk drivers. It gives lawyers a new source of technicalities to allow the guilty (including those who have confessed or were found with large quantities of drugs) to go free....The main beneficiaries of a bill of rights are lawyers who profit from legal fees generated and criminals who escape imprisonment on a technicality. The main losers are taxpayers, and society in general through the reduction of values to courtroom weapons.....”
'Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.'
(29 Apr 08) "....Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam , or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb , or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. ... What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, KhoÂmeini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies' basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies...The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam's oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper's 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West.... Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic.....The elite media regularly under-report fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature....” An Anatomy of Surrender , Bruce Bawer, City Journal “....When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombing—even though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it....Leading liberal intellectuals and academics have shown a striking willingness to betray liberal values when it comes to pacifying Muslims. Back in 2001, Unni Wikan, a distinguished Norwegian cultural anthropologist and Islam expert, responded to the high rate of Muslim-on-infidel rape in Oslo by exhorting women to “realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”..... Western legislatures and courts have reinforced the “spirit of appeasement.” In 2005, Norway's parliament, with virtually no public discussion or media coverage, criminalized religious insults (and placed the burden of proof on the defendant). Last year, that country's most celebrated lawyer, Tor Erling Staff, argued that the punishment for honor killing should be less than for other murders, because it's arrogant for us to expect Muslim men to conform to our society's norms.... The key question for Westerners is: Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them? Many free people, alas, have become so accustomed to freedom, and to the comfortable position of not having to stand up for it, that they're incapable of defending it when it's imperiled—or even, in many cases, of recognizing that it is imperiled.. "
The 'greatest scam in history'
(29 Apr 08) “....If you have friends and family concerned about global warming, have them watch this video from the founder of the Weather Channel. This guy has more experience and common sense than all the scientist in the IPCC put together. Here is the introduction to the video at The New American : "Many believe that global warming is one of the most critical challenges that face our planet today....” The 'greatest scam in history' “....According to the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, many scientists and most environmentalists and their allies in the media and academia, uncontrolled rising temperatures will cause more frequent droughts, food shortages, melting polar ice caps and coastal flooding, and the extinction of polar bears and many other species. They claim that modern, industrialized society is causing global warming, and they predict climatic calamity including frequent category five and numerous other severe storms resulting in great suffering. "After years of study, John Coleman is convinced that none of this is true. And thousands of scientists and other meteorologists hold this same dissenting view....”
Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power
(26 Apr 08) “....Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power.....The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels... The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday.....” Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power , Idaho Statesman.com “...There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources...... uranium can be found within the United States and also comes in large quantities from Canada and Australia. Nuclear Power reduces the reliance on supplies in dangerous places including the Middle East.... He says his change of heart comes from his background in science and a different approach to sustainability. He sees a need for maintaining technologies that are not harmful while fixing or replacing those that are harmful.....”