Life flourishes in a green-house

A global warning on global warming!

"Climate change is the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation".  So said Kevin Rudd just prior to being elected Prime Minister of Australia in 2007.

Climate change is indeed the greatest challenge we face, but not for the reasons given by those who believe in anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.

It is the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge we face because the trillions spent on carbon emissions could more effectively address poverty, food, water, health, education and other social issues. The very things that are killing millions of people a year.

We focus on carbon while millions die.  We fiddle while Rome burns.

It is misdirection. 

It is the left wing's version of the War on Terror; an excuse to control, tax and legislate the populace more than ever.

Strategies to reduce global warming are a war on the poor. Carbon tax is reverse wealth redistribution, taking money from citizens and distributing to big business under the auspices of "green energy".

Is carbon dioxide (CO₂) the demon? Is CO₂ the killer?

CO₂ is a nutrient not a pollutant.

Life flourishes in a greenhouse.

Demonising CO₂ is akin to the demonising of refugees and cannabis which were done for political or economic reasons.

Proposed carbon reduction efforts will result in 0.18^oC  reduction in global temperatures in a century - a waste of resources for no return.

Even if we successfully reduce our CO₂ emissions, it will be a pyrhhic victory, costing the population of the Earth far more than the benefits gained.

Origins of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Campaign

The theory that CO₂ emitted by the burning of fossil fuels would also increase global temperatures was first hypothesised in the 1880s with a predicted 1oC increase by 1940.  This increase did not eventuate. ⁽¹⁾

In 1979, Margaret Thatcher, leader of the Conservative Party became British Prime Minister. As the world's first female Prime Minister, she set about gaining international respect based on her scientific qualifications.  Additionally, the Conservative Party blamed their 1974 election defeat on the National Union of Mineworkers, so as retribution had an agenda to replace the UK reliance on coal with nuclear energy.   Nuclear power stations would also assist the UK in developing their military nuclear program.

To achieve both respect for Thatcher through impressing with her scientific qualifications and more importantly destroy the power of the coal industry, the global warming theory of the 1880s was resurrected and the attack on CO₂ emissions from coal fired power stations commenced.

Margaret Thatcher raised her global warming theory with other world leaders who eventually saw her proposed "carbon tax" as a means to raise revenue, strengthen their economies and weaken the economic influence of the United States who had a major reliance on oil and coal based industries.

Thatcher opened the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and allocated funding to climate research.  In 1988 the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The IPCC uses the Hadley Centre for its research.

The IPCC was tasked with proving anthropogenic global warming, not to find if there were alternative causes for it.

Scientific research funding has always been a competitive and lucrative industry in itself.  In order to justify the anthropogenic influence on global warming, governments began providing significant research grants to scientists who could link their research to man-made global warming.  Government provides few, if any,  grants to research other causes of global warming.

Most of the research reported in the media and published in peer-reviewed journals supports anthropogenic global warming.  There are scientists who do not support this theory, but their research is rarely published in journals and even more rarely published by the media.

Anthropogenic climate change models are based on theoretical calculations, whereas models put forward by scientists such as Dr Roy Spencer are based on historical information and satellite data. Yet the results of Dr Spencer's research are not reported in the media, even though he disproves anthropogenic causes as being a significant factor in global warming.

Pyrrhic Victory

There has been much modelling of climate change scenarios comparing "business as usual" with implementation of Kyoto protocols.  Note that "business as usual" quite simply means continuing to produce CO₂ emissions without any concerted effort to reduce them. These models have shown that "business as usual" temperature in the year 2100 will be 2.6^oC warmer than 1990.  Implementation of Kyoto will result in global temperatures in 2100 being 2.42^oC warmer than 1990: a saving of a mere 0.18^oC.  ⁽²⁾

To achieve this the world requires market-based mechanisms, such as carbon taxes to raise trillions of dollars to supposedly reduce carbon emissions.  All to save a paltry 0.18^oC over 100 years.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), 40 million people die per year.  Of this 0.3% are attributed to global warming.  Following the Copenhagen Climate Summit a consensus was undertaken of the world's top economists (this included 4 Nobel laureates) to determine the world's best economic opportunities for improving the world.  This was based on the return on each dollar spent and was ranked as Very Good, Good, Fair and Bad. 

The following four areas were seen as Very Good opportunities as they realised far more than $1 for every $1 spent on them:

• Disease - HIV/AIDS
• Malnutrition
• Subsidies and trade
• Diseases - malaria

Interestingly, climate change was identified as a bad opportunity because it returned LESS THAN $1 for every $1 spent.

 As can be seen, many more lives will be saved and many more people's health and standard of living improved through directly addressing health and trade issues than by addressing the uncertainly of climate change).

Increased wealth means that people can provide a higher quality of life for themselves and their children.

IPCC claims that implementing the Kyoto Procotocols will reduce the world's hungry by 2 million people by 2080 at a cost of $180 billion annually.  The United Nations estimates that spending $10 billion directly on a food programme would reduce the world's hungry by 229 million by 2080.

The claim that climate change will cause more people to be hungry is rubbish. Taking action on climate change will cause more hunger through an opportunity cost of 229 million still hungry in 2008.

Climate Change is a War on the Poor

The concern over anthropogenic climate change is diverting the social conscience of many people away from poverty and health to climate where there is little to nothing that we can achieve while the quality of life throughout many areas of the world worsens and the death rates from poverty and other social issues worsen.

In essence, we are fiddling while Rome burns.  People are dying from preventable causes while we focus on carbon.

Carbon tax will take trillions of dollars from all citizens at all ends of the political spectrum and divert it to big business in the name of clean energy innovation.

Prime Minister Gillard claims that pensioners and low income earners will be reimbursed for increased costs as a result of the carbon tax.  This is a smoke screen. The carbon tax will be paid many times over by every citizen as the tax is passed on through all commodities, not just electricity.  All products that we buy utilise electricity and oil in their production.  Solely reimbursing low income earners for increased electricity costs will not cover increases passed on by manufacturers in food, clothing, consumables and every other product that we purchase.

We are seeing the plutocratic nature of modern politics with the flexing of corporate muscle by large, industrial companies who have campaigned against the mineral resources rent tax. Whilst they may talk against carbon tax, the reality is that they will make money out of this by passing the cost on to the consumer many times over.

Carbon tax will cost local jobs as businesses move production to countries which do not have a market based mechanism addressing carbon.  Carbon tax will also have a negative rather than positive effect on reduction of carbon as companies will be importing goods produced in factories that do not have the same high level of pollution reduction that Australian factories have.

Since the 1960s, Australia has introduced pollution reduction mechanisms in all factories.  Note that this is not carbon reduction as there is no technology to remove CO₂ from the manufacturing process.  Pollution reduction in Australian factories has targeted real particle pollutants. Images in the media of factories pouring smoke from their chimneys are misleading. Most of the images are actually showing steam, not carbon.  Steam is not pollution.

Carbon tax is reverse wealth redistribution.

Global warming? What global warming?

There are two factors which cause global temperatures to rise or fall  ⁽³⁾:

• rate of absorption of solar energy
• rate of loss of infra-red energy to outer space.

The current theory that mankind is the cause of global warming and that the world's weather is extremely senstive to greenhouse gases has over-stated the effect of CO₂ as a greenhouse gas in reducing the rate of loss of infra-red energy.  Yet water vapour, such as humidity and cloud, provides 90% of the Earth's greenhouse gases, CO₂ is roughly 3% of the greenhouse gases, with the balance made up mainly of ozone and methane.

Climate change believers will argue that increased water vapour, caused by higher temperatures evaporating land based water reservoirs and the oceans, will amplify the effect of higher CO₂ levels, yet this is a circular and fallacious argument.  Water vapour merely stores heat of its own merit, it does not force CO₂ to react any differently.

The focus on CO₂ is very short-sighted and not looking holistically at the cause of climate variations, including factors such as:

• clouds - Dr Roy Spencer has reported that clouds (or lack thereof) cause warming or cooling.  Increased cloud coverage reflects more solar radiation which keeps the globe cooler but will also insulate more of the Earth's heat which assists in maintaining existing temperatures.  Decreased cloud coverage allows more solar radiation to warm the Earth ⁽²⁾.The IPCC has made the naive claim that cloud coverage remains static when evidence is quite clear that cloud coverage fluctuates.
• Factors such as land use, ice, snow and vegetation.
• Global weather oscillations, such as:
• Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
• El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
• Madden Julian Oscillation (MDJ)
• North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)
• Arctic Oscillation (AO)
• Historical fluctuations in climate such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. In fact, there was an effort by scientists to remove the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from history through the introduction of the "hockey stick" report of climate variation by Michael Mann, Bradley and Hughes.  The "hockey stick" flattened the effects of the Medieval Warm Period  and the Little Ice Age by utilising tree rings as a measure of temperature and then to use a satellite data to measure the last 30 years.  This is not comparing apples with apples.  Consider that tree rings did not record the high temperatures of 1998 (which is acknowledged as the hottest year for which records exist).  However, it is generally accepted that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were hotter than they were in 1998.  Below is the "hockey stick" and the originally accepted temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
  
  Hockey Stick (based on tree rings until 1970, post-1970 is based on satellite data) compared to the Traditional climate model (before the IPCC used the manipulated hockey stick) ⁽⁴⁾:

In now legendary testimony, the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing Statements, was advised by Dr David Deming of the University of Oklahoma that he had received an email from a major researcher in the area of climate change which said "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". ⁽⁵⁾

Climate change models have focused on forecasts and theoretical projections based solely on CO₂ without considering other factors. When compared to the multitude of variations that impact weather and climate, CO₂ is minimal.

Relying on these climate change models is similar to the scenario in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in which the smartest minds in the universe built a computer to calculate the "meaning of life, the universe and everything". After thousands of years, the computer gave the answer "42".  When asked what the answer meant, the computer told them that the answer wasn't the problem, it was the question that they did not understand.  Those who question the answer "holistic and cyclic factors", do not understand the question "what is the meaning of man-made climate change".  Instead of considering all the evidence, they disregard that which does not give them the answer they want.

Prior to the industrial revolution, CO₂ levels were approximately 270 parts per million (ppm) of the atmosphere, which is comprised of an accumulaton of molecules of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and so on.  Since the industrial revolution this has risen to 390ppm or 39 molecules of CO₂ for every 100,000 molecules of air.  According to Al Gore, mankind pumps 70 million tons of CO₂ into the air every day, so at this rate it would take 5 years to add one extra molecule of CO₂ to 100,000 molecules of air.  The effect of this slight increase in CO₂ is so small that it cannot be measured.  Even at double CO₂ the effect cannot be measured because of the impact of all other factors and atmospheric conditions.⁽³⁾

In the 1930s newspapers reported the melting of the polar ice caps. In 2007 the thawing of the North West Passage was reported as "unprecedented". Yet in the 1940s ships were able to navigate the North West Passage without an ice-breaker.

Al Gore and other scientists have presented evidence of glaciers melting to prove their concerns and link this to CO₂ emissions. The fact is that glaciers have advanced and receded many times over the last 12,000 years.  We are coming out of the Little Ice Age so it stands to reason that glaciers will recede during a warming period.  This is not evidence that man is to blame for it.  It is also not the answer that proponents of anthropogenic climate change want to hear.

During the Medieval Warm Period in the 11th century, Alaska was up to 3^oC warmer than today and the snowline of the Rocky Mountains was 300m higher than it is now.

Around 1500AD, the Little Ice Age started, resulting in the rapid advance of glaciers. Arctic pack ice extended so far south that there are 6 records of Eskimos landing kayaks in Scotland. ⁽²⁾

In the winter of 1693, around 2 million people died in France from the severe cold weather.

Harsh winters of the Little IceAge caused famine and more deaths than occurred during the Medieval Warm Period when food and crops were plentiful and people were warm.

Even with all the focus on climate change and carbon emissions, there is evidence that there has been no global warming since 2001.

Life flourishes in a green-house

Carbon based life-forms populate the Earth. Carbon is not a pollutant, it is the essence of life on Earth; without it there would be no plants, no animals, no mankind.

CO₂ is a nutrient and is necessary for photosynthesis by plants and phytoplankton. 

CO₂ is a green-house gas. It is called a green-house gas because of its ability to retain heat within the Earth's atmosphere, like insulation. 

Green-houses are used to grow plants and are warm environments in which the CO₂ is often artificially increased to 1,000 ppm which is around 2.5 times the normal atmosphere concentration of 390 ppm.

Yet green-houses are very rich environments in which life flourishes.  Plants and animals do not die in green-houses.  The reason CO₂ is increased in green-houses is to stimulate growth.

Could it be that CO₂ is actually good for the planet?

CO₂ nourishes crops and improves agricultural yields.  Rather than CO₂ destroying the planet it will assist agricultural industries and improve nutrition in developing nations.

According to Bjorn Lomberg, as the globe warms there will be heat waves but fewer cold snaps.  For every 1^oC increase in temperature there is a 2.6% increase in heat related deaths.  For every 1^oC decrease in temperature there is a 5.6% increase in cold related deaths.⁽²⁾

Based on extrapolation of data from an article published in the British Medical Journal by Keating et al (2000), Lomberg concludes that the average heat related deaths in Europe are 200,000 per year, but cold related deaths are 1.5 million.

Global warming is not a threat to life on Earth. Global cooling on the other hand is.

Life flourishes in green-houses, not in fridges and freezers.

CO₂ has been criminalised as a pollutant when clearly it is not.  This is similar to the demonisation of cannabis in the 1930s when it was labelled a narcotic, even though it had many useful applications which society had been using for centuries including in tinctures and as hemp.  Uses included medicinal, construction, rope, textile and as a renewable biomass fuel.

Less CO₂ would result in loss of plant and animal life.

What came first? The carbon or the sweat?

The basic premise of anthropogenic climate change theory is that the world is warming as a result of man-made increases in CO₂.  Yet it is likely that the inverse is true; that the increase in CO₂ is the result of a natural increase in global temperatures.

Apart from the issues mentioned earlier regarding the affect of clouds on temperature, there is also the relationship between water, CO₂ and increased temperature.  Cold water holds more CO₂ than warmer water. As water temperatures rise, more CO₂ is released from the water.    It is probable that natural increases in global temperatures are warming waters, causing an emission of CO₂ and contributing to increases in atmospheric CO₂ rather than global warming being caused by man-made increases in CO₂.

The below graph shows the correlation between CO₂ and Antarctic temperatures. Generally there has been around an 800 year lag from a rise in Antarctic temperatures to a corresponding rise in CO₂.



Note, that YD relates to the "Younger Dryas" cooling period and BA relates to the "Bølling/Allerød" warming period.  Both of these mainly affected methane and occured in the North Atlantic.

This graph summarises the findings of Monnin et al who wrote a paper entitled "Atmospheric CO₂ Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination".  Monnin studied ice core samples extracted from the Concordia Dome in Antarctica in 1999.  The authors of this study stated "we found that the start of the CO₂ increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 ± 600 years, taking the uncertainties of the gas-ice difference the determination of the increases into account." .⁽⁷⁾

A more recent study undertaken by Caillon et al (2003) measured the isotopic composition of argon air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period of the Glacial Termination III (around 240,000 years BP).  Caillon claims that the isotopic composition of argon "can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the timing of CO₂ and climate change".  Caillon concluded that "CO₂ increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years".⁽⁸⁾

These and other studies show that CO₂ is not driving temperature, but that temperature increases drive increases in atmospheric CO₂ through off-gassing from water and soil.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Rising Sea Levels

Concern has been voiced about rising sea levels.  Since 1860 the sea has risen 29cm. Rising sea levels are caused by:

• water expanding as it warms
• melting glaciers

In terms of Greenland, both satellites and the IPCC reports show that while Greenland is losing mass around the edges, it is accumulating mass in the interior as a result of increased rainfall resulting in increased levels of ice.

It is estimated that sea levels will rise by 34.5cm over the next 100 years and of course this is being attributed to anthropogenic global warming.  However, this rise will be reduced by 5.5cm because even with warmer global temperatures, Antartica will not noticeably melt as it is so cold there (around -34^oC).

Additionally, high global temperatures will result in more rain and cause Antartica to accumulate more ice, reducing sea levels by 5.5cm.  The net sea level rise over the next 100 years will therefore be 29cm.  Equivalent to the sea level rise since 1860.  This increase is based on the IPCC's own projections.

Al Gore's predicted 20' (almost 20m) rise is sheer fantasy and blatant scare mongering. Gore focuses on the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antartica, yet this ice shelf constitutes only 4% of Antartica.  Whilst this shelf is warming, satellite images show that the rest of Antartica is cooling and in fact, growing from precipitation. 2,000 years ago the Larsen B Ice Shelf did not exist and was most likely open water. ⁽²⁾

Modelling has shown that reducing carbon emissions may have a minimal reduction in sea levels, in that by 2100AD, sea levels "might" rise by 1cm less than a "business as usual" model.

Sea levels are rising, but not by anthropogenic causes.  The focus on carbon emissions is dangerous and will cost lives and land.  Rather than focus on carbon reduction, governments are better off to implement flood mitigation strategies for low lying lands and relocate people at risk of inundation.

Water

Another claim is that there will be water shortages as a result of global warming.  Yet there is plenty of water falling across the globe every year.  The world is not short of water.  The problem is that it does not fall uniformly across the planet.  So the challenge is getting clean water and sanitation to everyone.

Higher temperatures mean more precipitation, more water.  Rather than be distracted by ineffective carbon "reduction" market mechanisms, money would be better spent on water solutions such as:

• water storage improvements
• water diversion
• sanitation
• arranging for products which require high water consumption in their production, to be produced in areas with higher precipitation and export them to areas with lower precipitation.

Implementation of Kyoto protocols means no change in the number of people who have access to clean water and sanitation at a cost of $150 billion annually, yet by directly spending $4 billion annually would help 3 billion people have clean water and sanitation. Additionally, this $4 billion will save over a billion annual incidences of diarrhea.  ⁽²⁾

Where to from here?

The IPCC has established two solutions for reacting to global warming:

• A - development (economic) solution
• B - environmental (climate change) solution

These two solutions are then evaluated against the following scenarios:

• 1 - global population focus (cohesion)
• 2 - regional population focus (no cohesion)

A2 is the standard scenario if no action is taken; that is ongoing economic development with a regional focus by individual countries.

B1 is the solution preferred by the IPCC, that is an environmental solution with a global focus.

A1 presents the best opportunity for the world to work together cohesively and use the vast amount of global wealth to improve the world on a global basis.

Bjorn Lomberg has analysed and costed each scenario based on data from numerous sources including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and models presented by Yale University's William Nordhaus DICE and RICE models ⁽⁶⁾ and arrived at the following income/cost for each of the IPCC scenarios. ⁽²⁾

The losses in A1 and B2 will directly affect the world's poor.  The $3,005 trillion earned in A1 will greatly assist in alleviating poverty, hunger, health and education issues.  Focussing on climate change will not only cost $553 trillion but also cost the world the opportunity to direct $3,005 trillion towards direct and lasting improvements economically, socially and environmentally.

Conclusion

Warming and cooling of the planet is part of the natural climate cycle.  There will be increases in temperature followed by increases in CO₂. This does not mean that man is to blame for it.  Nor does it mean that man should spend trillions of dollars because of fear mongering as climate change believers that the end is nigh.
Every generation for millenia has had their share of doomsday prophets declaring the imminent destruction of the world.  Generally, these claims are based on religion, superstition or failure to understand natural scientific events, such as eclipses, earthquakes and volcanoes.  Anthropogenic global warming fear campaigns are tantamount to the prophets and witch-doctors of generations gone by prophecying that the world is doomed and making the science fit the fear.  Of course, these disasters would be averted with a suitable sacrifice to the "gods" which invariably lined the pocket or larder of the afore-mentioned prophet.

Anthropogenic global warming is the modern version of ancient doomsday fear campaigns which will line the pockets of government and business while robbing the average citizen.

Given the excessive costs associated with addressing climate change through targeting carbon emissions which will be ineffective and economically unviable, the more effective solutions that should be adopted to provide a better future for the world are:

• direct funding of programs to address poverty, hunger, health and education,
• address land use to minimise tree clearing and protect wildlife,
• modify industrial processes to minimise pollution of air and water-ways; this is not about carbon emissions (carbon is not a pollutant) but about particle pollutants,
• identify and develop sustainable, renewable energy sources (e.g. biomass fuels, geothermal energy) to replace fossil fuels as there will come a time when the world reaches "peak oil".

The focus on carbon emissions and man-made climate change is distracting from more effective strategies that will improve and sustain life on Earth.

References

1. Richard Courtney, 'Global Warming - How It All Began', http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm accessed 1 May 2011.

2. Bjorn Lomberg (2010), 'Cool It - the skeptical environmentalists guide to global warming', Marshall Cavendish Edition. 

3. Dr Roy Spencer (2010), 'The Great Global Warming Blunder', Encounter Books

4. Graphic: 'Battle of the graphs: Temperature anomaly relative to 1960 - 1990, Climactic changes in Europe over the past thousand years', http://www.globalclimatescam.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/hockey-stick-chart.gif

5. Statement of Dr David Derning, University of Oklahoma, College of Earth and Energy, Climate Change and the media, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing Statements, 12/6/2010, http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

6. William D. Nordhaus (2006), RICE and DICE models of Economic Climate Change, Yale University,  http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dicemodels.htm and http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/dice_section_vi.html

7. 'Temperature to CO₂ ' published 19 April 2001, on http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01a.htm#PROOF and developed from a paper entitled 'Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination' by Monnin et al, published in 'Science, vol. 291, p.112, 5 Jan 2011'. 

8. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php which summarises the findings of a number of scientists, including Caillon N., Severinghaus J.P., Jouzel J., Barnola J.-M., Kang J., and Lipenkov V.Y., 2003, 'Timing of atmospheric CO₂  and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III' published in 'Science 299: 1728-1731'.

Kids of today

"Childen today are tyrants.  They contradict their parents, gobble their food and tyrannize their teachers".  Socrates, Greek philosopher, 470-399BC

So often we hear older people complaining about "kids of today" having no respect. However, respect is a two way street.  If we treat people like they are fools and speak to them that way, is it any wonder that they respond in kind?

Children of today are no different to children of previous generations in terms of behaviour or attitudes.  Forget this rubbish about "gen X", "gen Y".  People are people and they don't change.  This includes the propensity for adults to believe that things were better back in the day!

Rather than me expound on this, I'll leave this to some of the world's greatest philosophers to make the point that this criticism of the young has been the habit of older people for millenia:

"We live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect their parents.  They are rude and impatient.  They frequently inhabit taverns and have no self-control" - Inscription on 6,000 year old Egyptian tomb

"Our earth is degenerate in these latter days; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; every man wants to write a book, and the end of the world is evidently approaching" - Assyrian stone tablet, circa 2000-2800BC

"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependant on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words ... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint" - Hesiod, 8th century BC

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect to their elders and love chatter in place of exercise.  Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannise their teachers" - attributed to Socrates by Plato - 4th Century BC.

"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?" - Plato, 4th century BC

"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age.  They are impatient of all restraint... As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress". - Attributed to Peter the Hermit, 1274AD. 

 "The most aggravating thing about the younger generation is that I no longer belong to it" John Dryden 1631-1700.

"The humour of blaming the present, and admiring the past, is strongly rooted in human nature, and has an influence even on persons endued with the profoundest judgement and most extensive learning" - David Hume, Scottish philospher, 1754

 "The denunciation of the young is a necessary part of the hygiene of older people, and greatly assists in the circulation of their blood".  Logan Pearsall Smith 1865-1946

"I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid" - G.K. Chesterton, 1874-1936

"Juvenile delinquency has increased at an alarming rate and is eating at the heart of America".  - United States juvenile court judge, 1946.

 "When I was young there was no respect for the young, and now that I am old, there is no respect for the old.  I missed out coming and going".  JB Priestley 1894-1984.

"Anything invented before your 15th birthday is the order of nature. That's how it should be. Anything invented between your 15th and 35th birthday is new and exciting, and you might get a career there. Anything invented after that day, however, is against nature and should be prohibited".  Douglas Adams 1952-2001.

People who complain about children of today, need to remember the role they play in shaping children (and remember this is the same development that they went through when growing up):

"In the life of children there are two very clear-cut phases, before and after puberty. Before puberty the child's personality has not yet formed and it is easier to guide its life and make it acquire specific habits of order, discipline and work. After puberty the personality develops impetuously and all extraneous intervention becomes odious, tyrannical, insufferable. Now it so happens that parents feel the responsibility towards their children precisely during this second period, when it is too late, then of course the stick and violence enter the scene and yield very few results indeed. Why not instead take an interest in the child during the first period"  - Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937.

As mentioned at the beginning, respect is a two way street.  Joseph Addison provides pertinent advice for those who wish to be respected, whether young or old:

"He who would pass his declining years with honor and comfort, should when young, consider that he may one day become old, and when he is old, that he has once been young".  Joseph Addison, 1672-1719.

America is not a Democracy

The United States is believed by many to be the world's greatest example of democracy. Yet, it was not founded as a democracy. It was founded as a Constitutional Republic on principles of liberty and fairness for the individual which is very different from a democracy where the will of the majority rules.

Politicians may be elected freely, but the implementation of legislation and policies is not undertaken by election.  A Constitutional Republic is constitutional because the government's powers are limited by the laws in the Constitution and it is a republic because the Head of State is appointed by election rather than inheritance (as in a monarchy) or by force (as in a dictatorship).

John Adams, second President of the United States, described the constitutional republic as being a "government of laws, not of men" and enshrined this in the Constitution of Massachussets in 1780.

Unlike democracy, a Constitutional Republic is designed to control the excesses of mobocracy or the "tryanny of majority".  The founding fathers of the United States warned against the "excesses of democracy" in the Framing Convention.  The debate surrounding the Constitution was detailed in the Federalist Papers.  In Federalist No. 10, James Madison noted:

"Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals."

Democracy literally translates from the Greek as "rule of the people". It generally means that the majority rule. The will of the majority of people in a society is appeased and has its way.  The problem with democracy is that it is great for the majority, but means that minority groups and individuals can be marginalised, forgotten, down trodden, victimised or persecuted. 

The founding fathers of the United States realised this when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". 

America certainly has an appearance of democracy in that people vote in free and fair elections, but that is as far as democracy goes for the USA.  In his book entitled "The American Legal System", John Scheb states that "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not simply a representative democracy but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered".

The Constitution puts the power of legislation and regulation firmly in the hands of Congress. Whilst representatives are elected by the people, the bicameral system of government ensures that legislation and policies are not driven by opinion polls, public emotion or the will of the majority. 

The problem with democracies is that people will always want what is in their own best interests, such as lower taxes and they will vote for politicians who give them what they want, not what is in the best interests of the economy or of society. Government needs to ensure that the best interests of everyone in society are looked after, not just those of the majority. The United State Constitution enshrined liberty, not democracy as the corner stone of government.

Liberty means that people have the freedom to live their lives as they wish without fear of persecution, it does not mean that they are given everything on a silver platter.  If a person aspires to buy a house, then they have the liberty to do so and can work towards ensuring they can afford one.  If they can't afford it, then it is not in their best interest to load them up with a mortgage that will ultimately cripple them.  If a person aspires to be a doctor, then they have the liberty to do so and can study and work towards that, they are not just given a medical degree because they want one.  Liberty ensure that everyone, from every walk of life, has the opportunity to study medicine, to buy a house, to achieve their desires without being unfairly restrained.

There are many legitimate forms of government.  Democracy is but one.  Certainly democracy has its benefits, but as we have seen with the United States, so does a Constitutional Republic. 

Republican Congressman, Ron Paul succinctly stated "Our country's fathers cherished liberty, not democracy". 

HL Menckin bluntly stated "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance".  

Democracy has been labelled as "mobocracy" as it responds to the wishes of the mob sometimes to the detriment of the good of the country and the neglect of the individual. The US Constitution counters this by truly valuing all individuals.

If we are to encourage nations to embrace any US value, it is liberty which is enshrined in the United States Constitution.  Over the years, this value has been forgotten and trampled on by various governments using fear to justify wars, to justify invading other nations, to justify locking up their own citizens.  One only has to review the "reds under the bed" fiasco or the so called "War on Terror" which gave rise to the secretive and fascist "Patriot Act" which limits liberty in the name of combatting an ill-defined terrorism. 

Liberty is the greatest virtue of the United States Constitution.  It should not be forgotten or misunderstood.  Liberty should be valued and appreciated.  Regardless of the system of government, liberty is what matters most to all people and makes life worthwhile and fulfilling. It is liberty that has made America more appealing than the USSR, China, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan under the Taliban.  Those countries had no liberty. Had their citizens had liberty: liberty to leave or return, liberty to criticise and question, liberty to worship (or not worship), liberty to pursue their dreams; then those countries may have been more appealing and achieved the levels of greatness and respect that the United States has.

Liberty is more precious than democracy.

Rediscovering the Labor Heartland

The NSW Labor party was crushed in the state election held on 26 March 2011 after 16 years of leading the State.  Ten of those years were under the leadership of Bob Carr who had greatly improved New South Wales through infrastructure spending, environment and reduction of state debt.  Infrastructure expenditure included roads such as the M5 Extension, Eastern Distributor, M7 Westlink, Lanecove tunnel and the Cross City tunnel.  Carr had reduced NSW net debt from 7.4% of gross product to zero.  In terms of environment, he opened 100 new state parks in his first term, he stopped logging north of Coonabarabran and negotiated the restructure of mills which rather than kill the surrounding towns, now sees them thriving. Carr established the building sustainability index which required new housing developments to achieve targets for reduced water and energy consumption.  Every Premier, every Prime Minister can be criticised and there will always be people who didn't like them, but overall, Carr was a good Premier who achieved many benefits for the people, economy and environment of New South Wales.

Prior to this, at the federal election in 2010, the Gillard led ALP squandered the significant majority that the Rudd led ALP had won in 2007 when Liberal Prime Minister John Howard lost his own seat.  Gillard was only able to form government by entering into a deal with Greens and Independents.

So why is the electorate abandoning the Labor Party?  What has gone so wrong?

The Australian Labor Party was formed out of union movements representing the rights of workers.  Considering that the majority of the Australian electorate are workers, surely the ALP is the party to support.  One only has to see the lack of rights that the Australian worker was presented with when Howard rolled out Workchoices.  This was an industrial relations policy that was great for employers but left workers to negotiate their own agreements, ensuring the rights of the worker were firmly at the mercy of the employer. For those employers who were enlightened enough to realise the reciprocal value of their employees this was good. For those who didn't, this meant a loss of rights and a workplace without security.  If anything, Workchoices demonstrated exactly why the union movement is still relevant to modern society.

Workchoices did not happen overnight. It was, ironically, Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke who revolutionised industrial relations by trying to find a balance between workers and business.  Hawke introduced Enterprise Bargaining which highlighted the importance of union membership although during this time, the compulsion to join a union was removed.  The undermining of union power was off-set by the consolidated power of a union membership in negotiating better wages and conditions.

Successive Labor governments have moved further and further to the right, ignoring their left wing origins.  For instance, the Labor government has embraced capitalist policies such as the privatisation or corporatisation of government services including rail, electricity, gas and water to the detriment of the consumer through higher costs and lower service delivery.

We live in a world where corporations have their hand in the pocket of consumers shaking them down for money even when there has been no true consideration given in the economic sense of quid pro quo.  The consumer often pays for price increases or non-existent services justified by such nebulous claims as "the fear of a mineral resources rent tax" or the "fear of a carbon tax", surcharges for using credit cards even when there is no other payment option, such as the $25 cost to book an airfare with a credit card. 

Corporations are in the business of making money - the service or product that they provide is of little consequence.  Governments are in the business of delivering services to the electorate and implementing policies to benefit the country.  Either way, the consumer pays.  In general though the consumer pays more for the service to be delivered privately than publicly.  It is a matter of priority.  For government the priority is the service or the benefit of  the community. For corporations the priority is earning money for benefit of share-holders.

When public services are privatised, the result is often higher costs and less service.  When government is responsible for the service, it is done with a priority on delivering the service, not on making money from it.   Labor has the opportunity to reduce the impact on the earnings of every person by not privatising or corporatising services.  In New South Wales, Labor privatised the electricity industry which will cost jobs and increase electricity bills whilst ignoring issues that matter more to the electorate, such as public health and public transport.

It is no surprise that the so-called Labor heartland, the grass-roots supporters, the workers have abandoned Labor.  There is a disconnect in which Labor is seen as little different to the Liberal party with their focus on strengthening big business at the expense of the Aussie battler.

Where is the Labor heartland?  It is every worker and the community to which they belong.  Globalisation and corporatisation has converted almost all of us into a worker whether we are a receptionist, carpenter, miner, CEO or doctor.  Many of us now work for a conglomerate owned by a large corporation.  Often times the corporation has bought out a number of small businesses with no concern for the rights of the small business owner or of those working there.

For Labor to again be successful and relevant, they need to value their heartland and rediscover their roots. Respect the community, respect the individual and listen to the heartbeat of the nation, not just the balance sheet of big business.

From Vegemite to Football - the Missing Link

Men face a quandary! Women accuse us of:

• not looking hard enough
• not asking for directions

Is anyone else seeing a dilemma here? A contradiction? Is anyone else seeing that men are in a no-win situation?

Let's face it: men suffer domestic blindness!  It doesn't matter how many times we go to the pantry we will NOT see the vegemite.  The final ignominy is when we tell our wife we are out of vegemite and she magically finds it within seconds.  Domestic blindness.

Whilst men like to hunt, we do not like to hunt in the lounge room!  So we ask our beautiful partner if she knows where the remote control is and the forth-coming answer is invariably: "have you had a good look?"

So here is the contradiction that men live with day in and day out:  if we ask for directions we are accused of not looking hard enough, if we look harder and harder we are accused of being too macho to ask for directions.

Maybe that is why men like to watch football - the goal-posts never change!  Of course this then raises a new criticism of us veging out on the couch watching Friday Night Football.  Veging in front of the footy is a response to the afore-mentioned ever changing playing field that has been the lot of men for centuries.

No wonder men have a shorter life expectancy.

Chicken Little and the Apocalypse

A number of Christians believe that we are now living in the "end times" and that recent natural disasters and upheaval in the Middle East are fulfilment of biblical prophecy.  Similarly, many people believe that recent natural disasters are evidence of the Earth suffering a potentially terminal condition called "global warming".  However, for centuries people have been claiming that the "end is nigh".

This article is not seeking to diminish the impact and tragedy associated with any disaster but is written to put these disasters into context given the sheer volume and magnitude of them over millenia. The terrible fact is that disasters have happened before and will happen again.  Our reaction should not be consumed with sensationalist "Chicken Little and the sky is falling" propaganda either from Christian zealots who believe it signifies the Second Coming of Christ or by environmental zealots who believe that these disasters prove the apocolyptic nature of global warming and climate change.

I will be addressing climate change and global warming in a separate article but I want to state briefly that whilst I don't ascribe to the current theory about the human cause of climate change and global warming, I sincerely believe that we do need to address the issues of pollution, sustainable living, logging, protection of our land, forests, oceans, water-ways and wildlife. Natural disasters, wars and disease have killed millions of people over thousands of years. What we are seeing now is nothing new, including the reaction of doom-sayers.

The earthquake and tsunamis that hit Japan on 11 March 2011 have been described as the worst in 100 years, indicating that this is not the first time that Japan has suffered earthquake and tsunami. This quake recorded 8.9 on the richter scale. In 1923 a earthquake in Japan registered 7.9 and killed 142,000.

Similarly, when category 5 Cyclone Yasi struck North Queensland in February 2011, it was the strongest cyclone to hit since 1918 when two category five cyclones struck that area within 5 weeks of each other.  The January 2011 floods in South East Queensland saw the Brisbane River peak at 4.5m, in the 1974 floods the Brisbane River peaked at 5.5m and during the 19th century, the Brisbane River peaked over 8m on two occasions.

In 1883 an Indonesian volcano, Krakatoa, erupted with such force that it was heard 5,000km away.  It is regarded as the loudest noise ever heard in the world.  The shock wave was recorded on barographs across the globe and allegedly travelled around the world seven times.  The volcano shot debris 80km into the air and the dust cloud carried as far as New York City.  Krakatoa was the most violent volcanic eruption in recorded history and killed over 40,000 people.  The resultant tsunami was 40m high and killed 36,000 people on the Java and Sundra Islands.  Tsunamis were experienced across the Indian and Pacific Oceans, affecting the west coast of North and South America and even the English Channel.  The temperature of the world dropped by 1.2 degrees and did not return to normal until 1888.  This was truly a catastrophe of epic proportions felt across the entire globe.

The world's worst natural disaster in terms of lives lost is the Chinese floods of 1931 which killed up to 2.5 million people.  In 1887, the Yellow River flood in China killed up to 2 million people.   In 1556 the Shaanxi earthquake killed 830,000 people in China and in 526AD an earthquake in Turkey killed 300,000 people.

The Earth survived.

Regarding disease, in the 14th century the Bubonic Plague (or Black Death) killed up to 100 million people - in excess of one third of Europe's population.  In fact, some estimates state that up to 60% of Europe's population were killed.  The Book of Revelation, verse 9:15 states that "the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind" and Revelations 9:18 goes on to say "by these three plagues a third of mankind was killed - by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths".  With over a third of the population killed there were many who thought that this was the end of the world as prophesied in the Book of Revelation.

In the 6th century the Plague of Justinian, thought to be bubonic plague, killed between 40 and 100 million people throughout Asia, Africa and Europe; this is up to half of the world's estimated population in 600AD of 200 million.  More recently, 100 million people were killed between 1918 to 1920 from the Spanish Flu.

And then there are wars.  Many people thought that the anti-christ as prophesied in Revelation was personified in Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin. The Second World War resulted in the deaths of around 70 million people, around 3% of the world's population. The 8th century An Shi Rebellion in China resulted in 36 million deaths, roughly 15% of the world's known population.  The Thirty Years War of the 17th century killed up to 11 million people.  The wars of the Holy Crusades which were fought in the Middle East and Europe killed up to 9 million people between the 11th and 13th century.  There were some who saw the terrible tragedy of these events as fulfilment of biblical prophecy and a sign of the end times.

Most recently there are people who view the recent upheaval in the Middle East as a fulfilment of biblical prophecy and an augury of end times.  The Middle East has a long history (as do other parts of the world) of kingdoms rising and falling, of wars and rebellions. The prophet Mohammed turned the Middle East around as he conquered one city and country after another.  The rise of various Islamic empires and finally the downfall of the last great Islamic Empire, the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century were all major events for their time; events that we feel the affects of today.  Refer to the Islamic influence on Spain and other parts of Europe, on the Middle East and across the globe in India, Indonesia, Phillipines and many other countries, on politics and language, science and mathematics. Current rebellions and over-throws are but one more chapter in the rich tapestry of the Middle East.

History has shown that natural disasters, wars, famine, pestilence have affected the world for millenia and will continue to affect the world.  Whilst many people have been killed, maimed or disabled through these tragedies, the Earth goes on, people go on.

A bad year of natural disasters across the globe or upheaval in the Middle East does not indicate a fulfilment of biblical prophecy of the apocalypse, it does not mean that the "end is nigh" and it is not signalling the imminent return of Christ or the end of the world as we know it through a changing climate and global warming.

We should not live in fear of the world ending, we should not put our lives on hold, but instead continue living each day as though it matters, living each moment to its fullest.

The capitalist call for communism

An overheated market let to a global financial melt-down, affectionately known as the GFC (Global Financial Crisis).   As the market crashed the major US banks turned to the government to rescue them.  The US government provided the largest "bail-out" in history because of the fear that the banks were "too big to fail". However, this resulted in the US government becoming the largest share-holder for many of the banks and of the US banking industry being nationalised.   This was described in an article by the New York Times published on 16 January 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/business/worldbusiness/16iht-16banking.19415086.html

As stated in the NY Times article, the $700 billion bail-out called for the government to take control of the banks' investments, executive wages and share-holder dividends. Since that article was written, it has been revealed that the Federal Reserve bail-out was worth $9 trillion:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/news/economy/fed_reserve_data_release/index.htm

Of course a country such as the United States, which has so vociferously opposed communism would never allow the nationalisation of free market institutions such as banks... would they?

The lesson from the GFC is that unrestrained capitalism will result in disaster.   Globalised companies are only interested in profit, they are not interested in the service or product that they are supposed to deliver.  When globalised companies crash, they do so with global consequences. 

Yet, capitalists are constantly campaigning for the privatisation of traditional government services.  The GFC and the general increase in costs and decrease in services from profit driven companies show that there is a need for government control of essential services such as health, education, police, defence and public housing  Governments are less concerned with profit and are committed to delivering the service for the good of society.

Obviously there is a place for capitalism, but it must be tempered by responsible government controls in order to protect society in general.