One of my favourite scriptures in the bible is Hebrews 4:15, which reads: "For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathise with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin".
Years ago I had become very discouraged with my own weaknesses and felt that I couldn't relate to the perfection of Jesus. I knew that Jesus had been tempted by the devil when He was challenged to turn stones into bread, when He was challenged to leap from a tower and leave His fate in the hands of the Angels and when He was taken to the top of a mountain and promised the kingdoms of the world in exchange for worshiping Satan.
Whilst these temptations were significant, they weren't the sort of things I had personally been tempted with. No-one had led me up a mountain and offered me the kingdoms of the world or to turn stones into bread or to leap from a high tower - not literally anyway. I'm sure these temptations can be applied figuratively to our lives, but at that time they really meant nothing to me and were not temptations that I could identify with. As a result I felt that Jesus had no idea what it was like to be tempted as a human by the allure of the world.
I rationalised that Jesus found it easy to resist temptation because he KNEW that He was the Son of God. He knew without doubt that God was real. For me, the reality of God was a matter of faith without any empirical evidence that God really was there. I believed He was real, but I couldn't physically prove it to anyone.
During this time one of my favourite movies was "The Last Temptation of Christ". A movie that had been banned at one stage at the behest of the Catholic Church. The reason I liked this movie was that it showed the humanity of Christ and his struggles with both his divinity, humanity and temptation. Many movies about Jesus only explore His divinity, His Godliness. As I'm not a god, I found his divinity to be something I couldn't really relate to. As a man, I could relate to His humanity.
The bible tells us that Jesus was the Son of God AND the Son of Man. It was necessary for Him to be born of a woman so that he shared both divine and human qualities. A fact that I had not comprehended until I understood Hebrews 4:15.
The divinity of Jesus is essential in bridging our relationship with God. Yet this did not mean that Jesus was unaware of the struggles we face. The temptations of Jesus were not constrained to those three events in the Gospels. Hebrews 4:15 says that Jesus was tempted in the same areas that we are. This means that He was tempted in ALL ways that we are, including lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and pride of life. He would have been tempted with immorality, vanity, pride, greed, anger: just as we ALL are. Yet He remained pure, without sin. He was tempted, but he did not give Himself over to temptation.
Jesus understands our weakness no matter how discouraged we get, no matter our disenchanted we become with ourselves or others.
He understands because He has been there and is still there for us.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Big Brother, Doublethink & the Memory Hole - Politics in the Modern World
Big Brother, Doublethink & the Memory Hole - Politics in the Modern World
Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Terror ... more than 70 years of continuous warfare.
Is this the realisation of the "Perpetual War" that George Orwell wrote of in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four?
These wars had to be fought to ensure the continuation of democracy and capitalism - so we've been told. We feared communism and socialism, we feared the insidious and subversive nature of drugs and now we fear Islamic extremists. We fear people who are not like us, outnumbering us in "our own" land.
Our modern western society has eerily disturbing similarities to the world portrayed by Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
The purpose of "Perpetual War" was to artificially create fear in the minds of the population to believe that they were at war with an enemy who was ill-defined, yet identified as the source of many of society's ills; without any logical argument or proof behind the accusations. In Orwell's perpetual war citizens had to swear undying allegiance to "Big Brother" and the State without question. This was not that different to George W. Bush declaring that "you are either for us or against us". Big Brother employed "thought police" to monitor the behaviour, reactions and opinions of citizens to weed out those who were traitors to society. President Bush passed the Patriot Act which restricted media and free speech and gave law enforcement unprecedented powers of monitoring, censorship and arrest. Journalists were "embedded" in military operations so the media would only report "authorised" information.
Orwell's Big Brother would often change the enemy. One day an ally would be an enemy and an enemy would be an ally and citizens were expected to forget the previous status of the relationship as history was rewritten and contrary evidence destroyed in the "memory hole". The enemy being fought today may not be the enemy being fought tomorrow. We have seen parallels with this in modern society. During the 1980's Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, the Mujahideen were all supported, financed and armed by the United States.
However, during the 1990's Saddam Hussein became the enemy. Osama bin Laden formed Al Qaeda and became the enemy. From the Mujahideen, the Taliban was formed and following 9/11 became the enemy because they were harbouring Osama bin Laden. Histories were rewritten and denials issued of the support that the USA gave to these groups. Lies were manufactured to justify the invasion of Iraq; for instance the blatant lie that Hussein and bin Laden were cooperating with each other, the lie that Hussein still held weapons of mass destruction in 2003 and denial of the original reasons for invading Iraq to fit the latest propaganda. In a purely Orwellian act, the USA buried these histories in the "memory hole" and continued on as though the history never existed whilst their citizens were left wondering "why do our enemies hate us so much". The reason given by George W. Bush was that "they hate our freedoms"; this could not have been further from the truth.
Two prime examples of this "memory hole" include Colin Powell stating in February 2001 "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbours of Iraq".
Then in July 2001, Condeleeza Rice stated "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt".
In August 2002, Dick Cheney stated "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction". The United States government from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and others commenced declaring that Iraq clearly was in possession of WMD and had to be disarmed. He was given warning after warning and in Monty Pythonesque logic Ari Fleischer declared that "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world". So if he weighs the same as a duck then he must be made of wood ...
In March 2003, the United States and its "Coalition of the Willing" (a Newspeak euphemism if there ever was one), invaded Iraq on the basis of disarming Saddam Hussein who was allegedly in possession of vast amounts of WMD. President George W. Bush declared on 17 March 2003, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised".
In March 2003, Donald Rumsfeld stated "we know where they are, they are around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat".
On 28 May 2003, Lt Gen James Conway "...we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not through lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there".
On 30 May 2003, President Bush continued with his lies by stating "but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them".
The Coalition of the Willing never found any of these banned weapons or manufacturing plants.
In May 2003, Paul Wolfowitz stated "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on".
In the late 70s, the strategy was for the USA to fund and arm dissidents (the Mujaheddin) to wage terrorist attacks against the Soviets, in order to drag the USSR into a prolonged and expensive war. The USSR invaded Afghanistan and the USA continued funding Islamic extremists to fight a "jihad" against the Soviets. Eventually this war drained the economy so much that it contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union.
In 1986, the leader of the Mujaheddin warned America that the jihadists were going to look for another enemy once the USSR was out of Afghanistan and that the enemy would be the USA. Most of the Jihadists did not know that they were being recruited and funded by the USA.
Since 9/11, Al Qaeda has engaged the USA in a protracted, expensive war which has seen America and her allies invade both Iraq and Afghanistan and wage wars that can't be won and which the USA can't afford. The War on Terror has cost the USA close to $1 trillion. This money has been borrowed from China. The Global Financial Crisis, whilst also caused by the greed of the banks, was not helped by the American debt owed to China. If America is not careful, it may very well suffer the fate of the Soviet Union.
Greed has blinded successive US governments to the potential threat of over-committing to war zones and trouble spots. The concept of Perpetual War is seen as profitable, after all not only is there an entire industry built around the manufacture of products and services consumed in war, for instance ammunition, weapons, armour, security, but there is also an entire industry around the rebuilding following war. The US markets this under the banners of "security" and "democracy", yet the locals in those countries often see it for what it is: power, hegemony and money-making for multi-national companies who have no concern for the local economy or local citizens.
Again to quote Orwell's 1984, when asked why the party clings to power, the answer given was not that it was for the good of the people but "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power ... Power is not a means, it is an end ... One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship". In this case, "the Party" is not a particular political party it is the government.
Of course this quote, does not solely apply to the US government, it could equally apply to any number of governments across the globe, particularly those established following a revolution, e.g. the Soviets, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Suharto, the theocratic rule established following the Iranian revolution. Some governments were established by more surreptitious "revolution" or by blatant force, for instance Israel, the Taliban, Gaddafi. All the while the big players, such as the US or the USSR were there funding and establishing their own influences in these revolutions so that they were the beneficiaries. One doesn't have to be the ruler to hold the power.
Western nations were quick to publish and remind citizens of the genocides perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, among others. What wasn't publicised was the complicity and support that the west, in particular the USA, gave to genocides and gross human rights abuses throughout the world. Declassified White House and CIA documents show that the USA funded, trained and were directly involved in the overthrow of many governments across the globe. This included overthrowing the socialist-leaning President Sukarno and replacing him with President Suharto. The CIA then provided names of left-wing sympathisers to Indonesian forces in order for those people to be arrested, tortured and executed. Suharto was responsible for over a million deaths in Indonesia. Suharto's troops received training from the British Army. Former UK Prime Minister Thatcher described him as "one of our best and most valuable friends". Former US President Bill Clinton described him as "our kind of guy". This was at a time when Suharto's crimes were well known. Imagine Thatcher and Clinton saying the same about Hitler or Stalin, yet he massacred over a million of his own people.
The USA will often boast of its democracy and its plan to bring democracy to the world. In 1973, Chile was under the leadership of socialist President Allende who had been democratically elected. The USA valued capitalism above democracy and sponsored a military coup which resulted in the death of Allende and the establishment of General Pinochet as Supreme Leader. It also resulted in right wing death squads hunting down left wing sympathisers and imprisoning, torturing and murdering them. The torture techniques were taught to them by the USA in their infamous "School of the Americas". All of this in the name of capitalism. It wasn't in the name of democracy and Allende was not a terrorist, he was not a despot: he's crime was to be a Socialist.
The USA funded the overthrow of numerous socialist or left wing governments across the globe using bloody revolutions, torture, murder to install US friendly despots who often were abetted by the USA to undertake genocides against their own citizens, particularly those of a socialist persuasion.
The main difference between the USSR and USA in their support of genocide is that the USA tended to not shit in their own backyard - they did it in other people's backyards and in the name of democracy. However, it was not democratic but pure, unadulterated hegemony and extremist capitalism.
There is a danger in blindly following one ideology whilst criminalising another. Rather than defend the indefensible, we should be standing up against tryanny, terrorism and human rights abuses regardless of who is perpetrating them. GK Chesterton summed it up when he stated " 'My country right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'my mother, drunk or sober' ".
Greed has blinded successive US governments to the potential threat of over-committing to war zones and trouble spots. The concept of Perpetual War is seen as profitable, after all not only is there an entire industry built around the manufacture of products and services consumed in war, for instance ammunition, weapons, armour, security, but there is also an entire industry around the rebuilding following war. The US markets this under the banners of "security" and "democracy", yet the locals in those countries often see it for what it is: power, hegemony and money-making for multi-national companies who have no concern for the local economy or local citizens.
Again to quote Orwell's 1984, when asked why the party clings to power, the answer given was not that it was for the good of the people but "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power ... Power is not a means, it is an end ... One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship". In this case, "the Party" is not a particular political party it is the government.
Of course this quote, does not solely apply to the US government, it could equally apply to any number of governments across the globe, particularly those established following a revolution, e.g. the Soviets, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Suharto, the theocratic rule established following the Iranian revolution. Some governments were established by more surreptitious "revolution" or by blatant force, for instance Israel, the Taliban, Gaddafi. All the while the big players, such as the US or the USSR were there funding and establishing their own influences in these revolutions so that they were the beneficiaries. One doesn't have to be the ruler to hold the power.
Western nations were quick to publish and remind citizens of the genocides perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, among others. What wasn't publicised was the complicity and support that the west, in particular the USA, gave to genocides and gross human rights abuses throughout the world. Declassified White House and CIA documents show that the USA funded, trained and were directly involved in the overthrow of many governments across the globe. This included overthrowing the socialist-leaning President Sukarno and replacing him with President Suharto. The CIA then provided names of left-wing sympathisers to Indonesian forces in order for those people to be arrested, tortured and executed. Suharto was responsible for over a million deaths in Indonesia. Suharto's troops received training from the British Army. Former UK Prime Minister Thatcher described him as "one of our best and most valuable friends". Former US President Bill Clinton described him as "our kind of guy". This was at a time when Suharto's crimes were well known. Imagine Thatcher and Clinton saying the same about Hitler or Stalin, yet he massacred over a million of his own people.
The USA will often boast of its democracy and its plan to bring democracy to the world. In 1973, Chile was under the leadership of socialist President Allende who had been democratically elected. The USA valued capitalism above democracy and sponsored a military coup which resulted in the death of Allende and the establishment of General Pinochet as Supreme Leader. It also resulted in right wing death squads hunting down left wing sympathisers and imprisoning, torturing and murdering them. The torture techniques were taught to them by the USA in their infamous "School of the Americas". All of this in the name of capitalism. It wasn't in the name of democracy and Allende was not a terrorist, he was not a despot: he's crime was to be a Socialist.
The USA funded the overthrow of numerous socialist or left wing governments across the globe using bloody revolutions, torture, murder to install US friendly despots who often were abetted by the USA to undertake genocides against their own citizens, particularly those of a socialist persuasion.
The main difference between the USSR and USA in their support of genocide is that the USA tended to not shit in their own backyard - they did it in other people's backyards and in the name of democracy. However, it was not democratic but pure, unadulterated hegemony and extremist capitalism.
There is a danger in blindly following one ideology whilst criminalising another. Rather than defend the indefensible, we should be standing up against tryanny, terrorism and human rights abuses regardless of who is perpetrating them. GK Chesterton summed it up when he stated " 'My country right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'my mother, drunk or sober' ".
In a piece of Orwellian "doublethink", the world's biggest arms dealers are the United States, United Kingdom, France, China and Russia, who also just happen to be the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the concept of doublethink was "to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies" or "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them".
So to reiterate, the five permanent members of the UN "Security" Council are also the world's largest arms dealers. To quote Orwell's doublespeak, "War is Peace".
President George W. Bush popularised the term "Compassionate Conservative" as a description of his extreme right wing conservatism. "Compassionate Conservatives" claim that they use old-fashioned conservatism to compassionately address the problems of society. Effectively, it is about divesting government of the responsibility to deliver social service programs, by funding their delivery through religious organisations and big businesses. "Compassionate Conservative" is pure Orwellian doublespeak. There is no compassion in the conservatism of the extreme religious right in the United States.
Former President Bill Clinton described "Compassionate Conservatism" as "I want to help you. I really do. But you know. I just can't". Compassionate Conservatives are generally of the extreme Christian Right Wing and have shown themselves to be pro-big business, pro-war, support low tax for the rich and higher tax of the poor, bigoted, opposed to human rights, opposed to the Bill of Rights, opposed to government social welfare programs which aim to assist the poorest people in society, opposed to public schooling and public health.
They are Compassionate in name only and have completely ignored the compassionate message of Jesus, whom they claim to so fervently follow.
They want free speech, or more accurately the freedom to criticise non-Christians, but are often the first to complain about outspoken Muslims or other non-Christians. They want freedom of worship, or more accurately, freedom for Christians to worship however and wherever they want, but not for non-Christians; often waging anti-Islamic campaigns.
"Compassionate Conservatism" is a doublespeak which has duped many Christians and conservative voters, appealing to their xenophobia with catchy, dumbed-down slogans of hate and fear.
Australia has not been immune from this destructive and duplicitous Orwellian politics. We have seen the rise of the religious right influencing government and religious "values" used in political campaigns. Then in a form of doublethink, these same "values" were used to justify war as community dialogue and public debates often became hate filled diatribes against refugees, asylum seekers and anyone who did not have the "same values as us".
The Australian Government made great use of the "memory hole" following the debacle over asylum seekers in 2001, firstly with the issues around the Tampa affair, then the fabricated "Children Overboard" affair, the denials and accusations over SIEV-X and the dehumanising policies of giving no voice to the asylum seekers and denying the media access to them or the military. In a prime piece of doublethink an immigration issue was turned into a military one by unfairly linking asylum seekers to terrorists and unleashing the SAS on the refugees rescued by the Tampa. The Navy was subsequently used to police our waters in order to "stop the boats".
This global and ongoing distortion of truth, manipulation of the population and misreporting of history was summed up in one of Big Brother's slogans:
"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past".
Orwell is often seen as the poster-boy of the right wing, portrayed as anti-socialist. Yet, Orwell was a Socialist and detested imperialism, totalitarianism and fascism. He described himself as a Democratic Socialist who supported free speech and free elections. He believed that Stalin had betrayed Socialism. He fought with the republicans against the Fascist government in the Spanish Civil War. He chose to become a Socialist because he saw the squalor and poverty that people in Britain were living in and blamed this on the greed and failure of Capitalism.
His books, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four warned against the tyranny of government regardless of whether the government claimed to be Socialist, Fascist or Capitalist. Some people have used these two books as an attack on Socialism, yet they were critical of the hypocrisy of Stalin who claimed to be a socialist, yet was a mass-murdering capitalist and Adolph Hitler who claimed to be a National Socialist (or Fascist) and showed himself to also be a mass-murdering dictator who oppressed and killed any who dare speak out or who was of a race or social group that he either feared or hated.
Over the last few decades we've seen the Alvin Toffler "Future Shock" vision come to pass where global corporations rule the world. Now, instead of simply government's controlling the masses it is often a hybrid beast of government outsourcing to big business in order to effect social change. As Naomi Klein has described in her book "Shock Doctrine", the rise of disaster capitalism has seen government and big business take advantage of disasters such as September 11 and Hurricane Katrina to implement policies which would have been more difficult prior to the disaster. After Hurricane Katrina, "charter schooling" was introduced to replace public schooling at a greater cost to taxpayers but a great fiscal benefit to business. After September 11, the opportunity was taken by the US government and private organisations such as Halliburton and Black Water to remodel Afghanistan, Iraq and potentially the entire Middle East into "democratic" (read "Capitalist") states at great expense to the US economy (trillions in debt) but at great profit to big business. Whose side is the US government on when it reduces public housing, Medicaid, Medicare, public education at the cost of boosting big business and an expanded military presence.
The fear of socialism and communism was used to manipulate the masses into accepting whatever lie the government required. Yet following the Global Financial Crisis which was brought on by years of unrestrained military expenditure and unfettered laissez-faire capitalism which made Big Business even bigger and crippled many of the world's national economies, corporations were then forced to return to Government with cap in hand asking for a bail-out. In the economic wars, the left-wing Keynes was shown to be victorious over the amoral capitalism of Milton Friedman; however, economic histories were also rewritten in order for extreme capitalism to appear victorious in the midst of its moral and fiscal bankruptcy.
As Orwell said "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act".
It also may serve to save us from ourselves.
With all of the hysteria around patriotism and nationalism, around fighting terrorism and invading Iraq and Afghanistan, we really should remember our history, remember our own contribution to the world as it is, whether that contribution is good, bad or ugly.
Orwell summed up the danger of this hysterical nationalism in a statement that serves as a warning to all of us:
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them".
Monday, June 27, 2011
Where did they get the money for that?
You know the ones! Those lucky few who can spend thousands and thousands of dollars to travel overseas! Often to countries that you haven't been to. You know, countries like Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and with the value added thrill of not carrying legal documents or shacking up in dangerous refugee camps or prisons. I know a lot of people would love an adventure holiday. How many would pay up to $25,000 for the adventure of travelling 'illegally', to or through countries with poor human rights records and then, just to really spice things up, chartering a leaky boat with dozens of other fellow travellers so that you can spend days at sea with the hope of being imprisoned when you make landfall; praying of course that the boat doesn't sink or catch fire in the meantime.
Yep. It must be good to be so lucky. To have that much money to waste paying some unscrupulous capitalist to smuggle your family and maybe you from a country where there is a high chance of rape or murder to a country which might eventually accept that you really were in danger, and therefore are a genuine refugee.
Where DID they get the money for that?
Surely if someone can afford to spend anywhere between $5,000 and $25,000 on people smugglers then they must only be an economic refugee not a humanitarian one... surely? After all, only poor people are persecuted, only people who don't own anything are oppressed. Aren't they?
Let's set the scene:
(1) Marauding government or civilian hordes raping, pillaging, murdering your people group
(2) To save your family you flee ... often across a border into a neighbouring country
(3) You are now treated as illegal with all the benefits which that entails.
(4) You are now in a refugee camp. Some of these camps suffer violence from locals whose country you have just fled to.
(5) Your life is on hold, you can't get a job, you can barely feed your family, your children are no longer receiving an education.
(6) You apply for a humanitarian visa, but this could take years. You know of people who have been in the refugee camp for 5 years or more. By then your children will be adults with no education and no longer having dreams of being doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers. A few years in a soul destroying refugee camp will do that to a child... and an adult...
(7) Let's call this 'Option 1'.
Let's rewind a few years:
(1)You are in a country with marauding government or civilian hordes raping, pillaging, murdering your people group.
(2) You and your extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins), decide that someone has to make a break for it to a country where the children will have an opportunity for an education, where you can recommence your life and you can make a worthwhile contribution to a new society.
(3) Let's call this 'option 2'.
The problem with option 2 is that it will cost thousands of dollars and risk the life of yourself and/or your family. Option 1 is relatively free but costs you and your family your soul, your motivation, your dignity and you will have to abandon your house, your shop, your farm ... it costs you everything.
Of course there is Option 3, which is 'do nothing' and remain in your own county, but that means remaining in a high risk situation in which your family may be kidnapped, raped, murdered at any time. It's your choice if you want to do that, but for the purpose of this article, let's run with Option 2.
So option 2 requires you to raise some cash. You sell your house, your shop, your farm, the sheep, the crops . Your extended family have to pitch in and your uncles and aunts and cousins sell what they have in order for you to be the lucky one who will risk life and limb to reach a humane country and then to assist in bringing the rest of the family over.
You pay a people smuggler and the first thing they do is ask for your documents. If you have any, you give them to the smuggler. Of course, some countries don't issue passports. For instance, Afghanistan only issues an identification card, not a passport. Some countries, including Afghanistan do not even bother recording birthdays. For some Muslims it is unIslamic to celebrate birthdays. Hmm... It would appear that accurate identity documents are already a problem. Some countries, such as Somalia are not safe for you to apply for a passport. It is tantamount to waving a flag and saying 'come persecute me'. Then there are countries which don't recognise certain areas or people groups, for instance Kashmiris and Kurds.
What say you fled the country in a hurry? Often times it can be difficult finding important things when there is a marauding horde outside your door baying for your blood. How many Aussies could locate their passport in a hurry whilst being attacked? For that matter, how many Aussies have passports? But of course we are in a safe country and this could never happen here (let's forget what might have happened with the Brisbane Line in World War 2). Then there is another issue with carrying documents. If you are fleeing a country, do you think it would be safe to carry identity documents? This would come in handy for the government to identify you and continue their persecution of you and your family based on your religion, race, area of origin ... all those things that might be easy to determine from your real name and address.
As a result of any one or more of the above scenarios the chances are that you are not travelling with identity documents. This may cause problems once you arrive at your destination, but for now all you are concerned with is the safety of your family and yourself.
Let's say this little adventure goes to plan and you arrive in Malaysia or Indonesia. You were smuggled in. You are treated like a criminal. So, just like Option 1, your life is on hold. You can't work and can't educate your children. In this country, you may be subject to corporal punishment, extortion and in some areas there is forced prostitution. Is this the sort of life that you want for your family? There is nothing to be gained from hanging around. So you press on and make for Australia. After all, if you are imprisoned in a country lacking human rights, you might as well be imprisoned in a country with better human rights.
Finally you make it to Australia and spend say a year or so in detention at Christmas Island or Villawood or some such detention centre. Eventually the government accepts that you (and hopefully your family) are genuine refugees and you are released into the community. You look for other people from your country and your religion, after all they are the ones who you identify with; they are the ones who understand what you have suffered and the fear that you have for your family and friends left behind.
You were someone in your country, maybe you were an engineer or a doctor. But here that means nothing. You need to work, so you end up driving taxis. It is a living and you save as much as you can to send to your family and assist others to make the risky journey.
Some people criticise those who pay people smugglers and accuse them of not being genuine refugees or of taking the places of poorer refugees. Of course, those who make this criticism often don't care for the poorer refugees either. Keep in mind that Australia allows for both on-shore and off-shore applicants. As we are so concerned with poorer refugees being disadvantaged by 'cashed up' refugees, why doesn't Australia increase its off-shore quota? Considering the quota only allows for around 10,000 or so refugees anyway, would it kill us to at least double it? This might encourage more people to apply from off-shore locations rather than making the risky journey in a leaky boat in order to make an on-shore application.
Those who criticise the 'rich' refugees for illegally(?) entering our country should keep in mind that Jewish and other refugees who fled Nazi Germany were often rich and used people smugglers to aid and abet their entry into other countries. They were the lucky ones. They were the ones who had the means to avoid the death camps, whilst those not so lucky or well-resourced, suffered horribly. Does anyone begrudge them for escaping by any means possible? Does anyone begrudge them entering other countries 'illegally' or for using people smugglers? Does anyone care whether they were cashed up or not? Means testing has never been a criteria for determining the eligibility or validity of a claim for asylum on humanitarian grounds.
Those who are suffering and are willing to do anything, to pay anything to save their families are as legitimate as those who spend year after year wasting their lives in the limbo of a refugee camp in another country.
This is not an endorsement for people smuggling. It is acknowledging the reality that whilst there is persecution and difficulty in migrating, people will do anything that they can to save their families and themselves. Before judging those who would do this, ask yourself what you would do if you were in their situation.
More than 90% of boat people arriving in Australia are found to be genuine refugees. Government rhetoric about 'stricter border protection' is politicising the genuine suffering that refugees are escaping from. Our borders do not need protection from the victims of persecution. Australia should not politicise, criminalise or dehumanise the victims of crime.
Instead of judging those who risk their lives in circumstances that we don't understand or appreciate, instead of hating them, we should be compassionate, we should put ourselves in their situation.
Rather than judging, we should be identifying with them. They are no different to us.
Their hearts yearn for the same things that our hearts yearn for: safety, security, happiness, love.
Let's identify rather than vilify!
Yep. It must be good to be so lucky. To have that much money to waste paying some unscrupulous capitalist to smuggle your family and maybe you from a country where there is a high chance of rape or murder to a country which might eventually accept that you really were in danger, and therefore are a genuine refugee.
Where DID they get the money for that?
Surely if someone can afford to spend anywhere between $5,000 and $25,000 on people smugglers then they must only be an economic refugee not a humanitarian one... surely? After all, only poor people are persecuted, only people who don't own anything are oppressed. Aren't they?
Let's set the scene:
(1) Marauding government or civilian hordes raping, pillaging, murdering your people group
(2) To save your family you flee ... often across a border into a neighbouring country
(3) You are now treated as illegal with all the benefits which that entails.
(4) You are now in a refugee camp. Some of these camps suffer violence from locals whose country you have just fled to.
(5) Your life is on hold, you can't get a job, you can barely feed your family, your children are no longer receiving an education.
(6) You apply for a humanitarian visa, but this could take years. You know of people who have been in the refugee camp for 5 years or more. By then your children will be adults with no education and no longer having dreams of being doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers. A few years in a soul destroying refugee camp will do that to a child... and an adult...
(7) Let's call this 'Option 1'.
(1)You are in a country with marauding government or civilian hordes raping, pillaging, murdering your people group.
(2) You and your extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins), decide that someone has to make a break for it to a country where the children will have an opportunity for an education, where you can recommence your life and you can make a worthwhile contribution to a new society.
(3) Let's call this 'option 2'.
The problem with option 2 is that it will cost thousands of dollars and risk the life of yourself and/or your family. Option 1 is relatively free but costs you and your family your soul, your motivation, your dignity and you will have to abandon your house, your shop, your farm ... it costs you everything.
Of course there is Option 3, which is 'do nothing' and remain in your own county, but that means remaining in a high risk situation in which your family may be kidnapped, raped, murdered at any time. It's your choice if you want to do that, but for the purpose of this article, let's run with Option 2.
So option 2 requires you to raise some cash. You sell your house, your shop, your farm, the sheep, the crops . Your extended family have to pitch in and your uncles and aunts and cousins sell what they have in order for you to be the lucky one who will risk life and limb to reach a humane country and then to assist in bringing the rest of the family over.
What say you fled the country in a hurry? Often times it can be difficult finding important things when there is a marauding horde outside your door baying for your blood. How many Aussies could locate their passport in a hurry whilst being attacked? For that matter, how many Aussies have passports? But of course we are in a safe country and this could never happen here (let's forget what might have happened with the Brisbane Line in World War 2). Then there is another issue with carrying documents. If you are fleeing a country, do you think it would be safe to carry identity documents? This would come in handy for the government to identify you and continue their persecution of you and your family based on your religion, race, area of origin ... all those things that might be easy to determine from your real name and address.
As a result of any one or more of the above scenarios the chances are that you are not travelling with identity documents. This may cause problems once you arrive at your destination, but for now all you are concerned with is the safety of your family and yourself.
Let's say this little adventure goes to plan and you arrive in Malaysia or Indonesia. You were smuggled in. You are treated like a criminal. So, just like Option 1, your life is on hold. You can't work and can't educate your children. In this country, you may be subject to corporal punishment, extortion and in some areas there is forced prostitution. Is this the sort of life that you want for your family? There is nothing to be gained from hanging around. So you press on and make for Australia. After all, if you are imprisoned in a country lacking human rights, you might as well be imprisoned in a country with better human rights.
You were someone in your country, maybe you were an engineer or a doctor. But here that means nothing. You need to work, so you end up driving taxis. It is a living and you save as much as you can to send to your family and assist others to make the risky journey.
Some people criticise those who pay people smugglers and accuse them of not being genuine refugees or of taking the places of poorer refugees. Of course, those who make this criticism often don't care for the poorer refugees either. Keep in mind that Australia allows for both on-shore and off-shore applicants. As we are so concerned with poorer refugees being disadvantaged by 'cashed up' refugees, why doesn't Australia increase its off-shore quota? Considering the quota only allows for around 10,000 or so refugees anyway, would it kill us to at least double it? This might encourage more people to apply from off-shore locations rather than making the risky journey in a leaky boat in order to make an on-shore application.
Those who criticise the 'rich' refugees for illegally(?) entering our country should keep in mind that Jewish and other refugees who fled Nazi Germany were often rich and used people smugglers to aid and abet their entry into other countries. They were the lucky ones. They were the ones who had the means to avoid the death camps, whilst those not so lucky or well-resourced, suffered horribly. Does anyone begrudge them for escaping by any means possible? Does anyone begrudge them entering other countries 'illegally' or for using people smugglers? Does anyone care whether they were cashed up or not? Means testing has never been a criteria for determining the eligibility or validity of a claim for asylum on humanitarian grounds.
Those who are suffering and are willing to do anything, to pay anything to save their families are as legitimate as those who spend year after year wasting their lives in the limbo of a refugee camp in another country.
This is not an endorsement for people smuggling. It is acknowledging the reality that whilst there is persecution and difficulty in migrating, people will do anything that they can to save their families and themselves. Before judging those who would do this, ask yourself what you would do if you were in their situation.
More than 90% of boat people arriving in Australia are found to be genuine refugees. Government rhetoric about 'stricter border protection' is politicising the genuine suffering that refugees are escaping from. Our borders do not need protection from the victims of persecution. Australia should not politicise, criminalise or dehumanise the victims of crime.
Instead of judging those who risk their lives in circumstances that we don't understand or appreciate, instead of hating them, we should be compassionate, we should put ourselves in their situation.
Rather than judging, we should be identifying with them. They are no different to us.
Their hearts yearn for the same things that our hearts yearn for: safety, security, happiness, love.
Let's identify rather than vilify!
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Do Gooders - on a Mission from God!
Do Gooders! You know the type. Always out there campaigning for "peace not war", for refugees, for human rights and the list goes on. Do Gooders! Usually those left wing, chardonnay sipping types who have adopted John Lennon's Imagine as their manifesto.
Do Gooders! Defined by the Free Online Dictionary as naive idealists who support philanthropic or humanitarian causes or reforms.
The term "do gooder" is often used disparagingly by conservative voters to criticise those of us who actually believe that people can and should live together in peace, that people deserve to be treated with dignity - "to do to others as we would have them do to us". Oh, isn't that a quote from the bible? Yes, actually, Jesus said it in Matthew 7:12.
Could it be that Jesus was a Do Gooder? After all, he saved that adulteress from being stoned by an angry mob, even though stoning is what the law called for. Could it be that Jesus wasn't too hung up on punishment, but on delivering mercy, compassion, justice and love?
Man, what a Do Gooder!
But then He was the Son of God! Perhaps that excuses his mild and meek, do gooder attitude! Although mild and meek doesn't explain Jesus at all. It was He who threw the money changers out of the temple for perverting the place of God.
Jesus came to save us from damnation, from Hell, from condemnation. The world is in balance. Physically and Spiritually. Physical balance was described by Isaac Newton with his three laws of motion; you know, equal and opposite forces etc etc.
Spiritually the world is in balance too: God and Satan, Heaven and Hell, sin and payment for sin. The bible says that the wages of sin is death. Spiritual death. Spiritual death being eternal separation from God. You sin, you go to Hell. One way to pay for sin was a blood sacrifice, usually a lamb, but that is so Old Testament. Jesus became the Lamb of God and paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, even going to Hell and rising 3 days later from death. This is why we say that Christians are saved. We are saved from Hell because Jesus went there in our place. We deserved to go Hell, but God through his love for us showed us grace that we did not deserve by sending Jesus to pay for our sins. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn, but that the world through Him might be saved. (John 3:16-17).
What has this to do with "do gooders"?
Ephesians 2:8-10 tells us exactly what this has to do with Do Gooders:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
What are these good works that God has prepared for us?
These are just some of the good works that we have been called to do:
Why has the role of "do gooder" been left to the left wing? Why are conservatives and the religious right so opposed to Do Gooders? This isn't to say that the left is perfect and the right is going to hell. The right wing certainly have their virtues as do the left wing. The issue is with using "do gooder" as an insult, when it should be a compliment.
Christians are by commandment of God, called to be Do Gooders and we should be leading the way in doing good works, we should be teaching the world how to do good.
After all, Jesus set the standard for doing good.
This article has also been published at 'The Christian Left' blog:
Do Gooders! Defined by the Free Online Dictionary as naive idealists who support philanthropic or humanitarian causes or reforms.
The term "do gooder" is often used disparagingly by conservative voters to criticise those of us who actually believe that people can and should live together in peace, that people deserve to be treated with dignity - "to do to others as we would have them do to us". Oh, isn't that a quote from the bible? Yes, actually, Jesus said it in Matthew 7:12.
Could it be that Jesus was a Do Gooder? After all, he saved that adulteress from being stoned by an angry mob, even though stoning is what the law called for. Could it be that Jesus wasn't too hung up on punishment, but on delivering mercy, compassion, justice and love?
Man, what a Do Gooder!
But then He was the Son of God! Perhaps that excuses his mild and meek, do gooder attitude! Although mild and meek doesn't explain Jesus at all. It was He who threw the money changers out of the temple for perverting the place of God.
Jesus came to save us from damnation, from Hell, from condemnation. The world is in balance. Physically and Spiritually. Physical balance was described by Isaac Newton with his three laws of motion; you know, equal and opposite forces etc etc.
Spiritually the world is in balance too: God and Satan, Heaven and Hell, sin and payment for sin. The bible says that the wages of sin is death. Spiritual death. Spiritual death being eternal separation from God. You sin, you go to Hell. One way to pay for sin was a blood sacrifice, usually a lamb, but that is so Old Testament. Jesus became the Lamb of God and paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, even going to Hell and rising 3 days later from death. This is why we say that Christians are saved. We are saved from Hell because Jesus went there in our place. We deserved to go Hell, but God through his love for us showed us grace that we did not deserve by sending Jesus to pay for our sins. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn, but that the world through Him might be saved. (John 3:16-17).
What has this to do with "do gooders"?
Ephesians 2:8-10 tells us exactly what this has to do with Do Gooders:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
What are these good works that God has prepared for us?
These are just some of the good works that we have been called to do:
- Spread the good news. Gospel literally means "good news". What better way to do good than to spread good news. Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you ...". One of those things we should be teaching, is to do good!
- Caring for the poor, the oppressed, the widow, the stranger. There are over 2,000 scriptures which refer to caring for the poor. When the bible refers to the stranger, it means strangers in the land: travellers, immigrants, refugees! The parable of the sheep and the goats, described in Matthew 25:31-46 which is summarised in verse 34-35 "inherit the kingdom prepared for you ... for I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you came to Me."
- Making peace, not war. In the beatitudes which Jesus delivered in His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-11), He says "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
- Love everyone. In Matthew 22:37-39, Jesus explains that the law is summed up in two great commandments: "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind ... and ... you shall love your neighbour as yourself ". It doesn't say to love your neighbour if they are the same colour and religion as you. Love your neighbour!
- Do Good!
Why has the role of "do gooder" been left to the left wing? Why are conservatives and the religious right so opposed to Do Gooders? This isn't to say that the left is perfect and the right is going to hell. The right wing certainly have their virtues as do the left wing. The issue is with using "do gooder" as an insult, when it should be a compliment.
Christians are by commandment of God, called to be Do Gooders and we should be leading the way in doing good works, we should be teaching the world how to do good.
After all, Jesus set the standard for doing good.
--0--
This article has also been published at 'The Christian Left' blog:
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Truth, Lies and Refugee Entitlements
There are numerous emails being circulated about what refugees are entitled to. Most of the emails are full of blatant lies.
They claim that refugees are entitled to far more than any Australian is. The truth is that refugees (that is those asylum seekers who have been assessed as being a genuine refugee and granted residency in Australia) are entitled to the same benefits as any other Australian resident or citizen. No more, no less.
However, asylum seekers who are yet to be assessed, receive nothing. Zero dollars! No allowances at all. So certainly cannot be accused of receiving more benefits than Australians.
This fact sheet from the Australian Government answers many of the claims in these emails:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AustGovAssist_Refugees.htm
A further refutation of these claims is also available at the following website:
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/refugee-payment-hoax.shtml
The only advantage that is applied to refugees over other immigrants is the waiting period for benefits. This waiting period is waived on humanitarian grounds, as refugees do not normally arrive cashed up or sponsored by an Australian citizen.
Some of these emails claim that Australia only accepts refugees from North Sudan, which is predominantly Muslim. The emails asks why does Australia bring in Muslim Sudanese instead of Christian Sudanese who live mainly in southern Sudan. The Department of Immigration advises that 83% of Sudanese refugees are Christian, whilst only 12% are muslim. Refer to the below fact sheet from the Department:
http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/delivering-assistance/government-programs/settlement-planning/_pdf/community-profile-sudan.pdf
Another claim is that refugees are given $50,000 either to settle or per year. This is another false accusation. It is possible that this figure is a perversion of the actual cost to detain a refugee under Prime Minister Howard's mandatory detention policy, as explained in a speech given in May 2001 by the Hon Marcus Enfield: "We are now the only developed country in the world which practises indiscriminate indeterminate incommunicado detention of asylum seekers. Alone of all countries in the world, including Canada, the United States and the nations of Europe and Scandanavia, we have indiscriminately detained all of them - the elderly, the children, the sick and the pregnant - at a cost by the way of around $50,000 per person per year ...". May 2001, Hon Justice Marcus Enfield (AO, QC, PhD) in a speech at the Jessie Street Trust Annual Gathering, Parliament House, NSW.
Many of these emails will claim that Muslims don't have Christian values and therefore will not assimilate and are not welcome. Yet the emails are full of hate, intolerance, racism and blatant lies which are far removed from values that Christians should embrace.
These emails appeal to people's fear of those who are different, to the fear that people will lose their way of life. So they are circulated at a prolific rate. They may be lies but the proliferation of them results in people believing they are true, further reinforcing hatred, fear, racism and xenophobia in Australian society.
"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it". United States Office of Strategic Services describing Adolph Hitler's psychological profile in a report entitled "Hitler as his Associates Know Him", page 51.
In late 2011, another email circulated which was also full of blatant lies and demonising of asylum seekers. Some of the claims in this email include:
1. "Federal police are making fewer drug busts because they are spending resources policing asylum seekers". This is wrong. Australian Federal Police drug busts have increased 300% in 2011.
2. "Asylum seekers are given mobile phones to call anywhere in the world and have incurred a combined bill of $5,000,000". The federal government does not provide asylum seekers in detention with mobile phones. They have access to land-lines to seek legal advice. Some asylum seekers are given mobile phones with limited credit whilst in community detention for safety reasons. Some refugee advocacy groups have sent mobile phones to detainees but these are not paid for by the government.
3. "As the boat sank off Christmas Island in 2010, rescuers threw life jackets to the people in the water". The email alleges that the adults pushed their children out the way so they could save themselves. This is wrong as can be seen on video footage of the tragedy.
4. "Asylum seekers in detention tell their guards that 'they are there to serve the asylum seekers' and when they don't, the asylum seekers attack the guards". Another falsehood. Much of the violence in detention centres has been caused by asylum seekers whose claims are denied and have not yet returned home, or by people frustrated by the length of time taken to process their claims.
5. "Asylum seekers print out their welfare entitlements from the net". This is false. Asylum seekers are not entitled to welfare until their claims have been approved and they have been granted residency.
6. "After 12 months, the asylum seekers have saved $10,000 which they send to their families in their country of origin for the use of bringing them out to Australia". Again a falsehood. Even after being granted residency, refugees are only entitled to the same welfare entitlements as other Australians. It would be quite an achievement for anyone to save $10,000 a year whilst on the dole. (If they can achieve this, then they should be working as a financial counsellor).
7. "Asylum seekers on Christmas Island have access to broadband internet whilst the locals only have dial-up". This is false, asylum seekers have access to the same internet connection that Christmas Island locals have.
There have been articles in the media reporting the abhorrent practice of giving refugees "plasma televisions". In this day and age, television is considered almost a basic human right. Refugees are provided with a start-up pack to assist them in furnishing their accommodation. After all, they have fled persecution and generally arrive with nothing. The furniture start-up pack has basic necessities; beds, dining table, lounge and the much demonised "big screen plasma television". Firstly, they left their own TVs at home in their rush to avoid being raped and murdered. Secondly, the two most common types of televisions available in Australia are LCD or plasma. As for big-screen, refugees may be provided with a 52cm television, hardly big-screen, but then who would put a smaller television into a lounge room?
The prolific circulation of emails and criticism such as these demonise refugees, blame them for our economic ills and accuse them of destroying our way of life.
Debate over refugees needs to be framed rationally and based on truth. Emails such as these contribute nothing constructive to discussions and often incite further hatred and fear against asylum seekers and refugees. Opinions either for or against Australia's refugee intake should be based on facts, not lies, not fear, not racism.
.
They claim that refugees are entitled to far more than any Australian is. The truth is that refugees (that is those asylum seekers who have been assessed as being a genuine refugee and granted residency in Australia) are entitled to the same benefits as any other Australian resident or citizen. No more, no less.
However, asylum seekers who are yet to be assessed, receive nothing. Zero dollars! No allowances at all. So certainly cannot be accused of receiving more benefits than Australians.
This fact sheet from the Australian Government answers many of the claims in these emails:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AustGovAssist_Refugees.htm
A further refutation of these claims is also available at the following website:
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/refugee-payment-hoax.shtml
The only advantage that is applied to refugees over other immigrants is the waiting period for benefits. This waiting period is waived on humanitarian grounds, as refugees do not normally arrive cashed up or sponsored by an Australian citizen.
Some of these emails claim that Australia only accepts refugees from North Sudan, which is predominantly Muslim. The emails asks why does Australia bring in Muslim Sudanese instead of Christian Sudanese who live mainly in southern Sudan. The Department of Immigration advises that 83% of Sudanese refugees are Christian, whilst only 12% are muslim. Refer to the below fact sheet from the Department:
http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/delivering-assistance/government-programs/settlement-planning/_pdf/community-profile-sudan.pdf
Another claim is that refugees are given $50,000 either to settle or per year. This is another false accusation. It is possible that this figure is a perversion of the actual cost to detain a refugee under Prime Minister Howard's mandatory detention policy, as explained in a speech given in May 2001 by the Hon Marcus Enfield: "We are now the only developed country in the world which practises indiscriminate indeterminate incommunicado detention of asylum seekers. Alone of all countries in the world, including Canada, the United States and the nations of Europe and Scandanavia, we have indiscriminately detained all of them - the elderly, the children, the sick and the pregnant - at a cost by the way of around $50,000 per person per year ...". May 2001, Hon Justice Marcus Enfield (AO, QC, PhD) in a speech at the Jessie Street Trust Annual Gathering, Parliament House, NSW.
Many of these emails will claim that Muslims don't have Christian values and therefore will not assimilate and are not welcome. Yet the emails are full of hate, intolerance, racism and blatant lies which are far removed from values that Christians should embrace.
These emails appeal to people's fear of those who are different, to the fear that people will lose their way of life. So they are circulated at a prolific rate. They may be lies but the proliferation of them results in people believing they are true, further reinforcing hatred, fear, racism and xenophobia in Australian society.
"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it". United States Office of Strategic Services describing Adolph Hitler's psychological profile in a report entitled "Hitler as his Associates Know Him", page 51.
In late 2011, another email circulated which was also full of blatant lies and demonising of asylum seekers. Some of the claims in this email include:
1. "Federal police are making fewer drug busts because they are spending resources policing asylum seekers". This is wrong. Australian Federal Police drug busts have increased 300% in 2011.
2. "Asylum seekers are given mobile phones to call anywhere in the world and have incurred a combined bill of $5,000,000". The federal government does not provide asylum seekers in detention with mobile phones. They have access to land-lines to seek legal advice. Some asylum seekers are given mobile phones with limited credit whilst in community detention for safety reasons. Some refugee advocacy groups have sent mobile phones to detainees but these are not paid for by the government.
3. "As the boat sank off Christmas Island in 2010, rescuers threw life jackets to the people in the water". The email alleges that the adults pushed their children out the way so they could save themselves. This is wrong as can be seen on video footage of the tragedy.
4. "Asylum seekers in detention tell their guards that 'they are there to serve the asylum seekers' and when they don't, the asylum seekers attack the guards". Another falsehood. Much of the violence in detention centres has been caused by asylum seekers whose claims are denied and have not yet returned home, or by people frustrated by the length of time taken to process their claims.
5. "Asylum seekers print out their welfare entitlements from the net". This is false. Asylum seekers are not entitled to welfare until their claims have been approved and they have been granted residency.
6. "After 12 months, the asylum seekers have saved $10,000 which they send to their families in their country of origin for the use of bringing them out to Australia". Again a falsehood. Even after being granted residency, refugees are only entitled to the same welfare entitlements as other Australians. It would be quite an achievement for anyone to save $10,000 a year whilst on the dole. (If they can achieve this, then they should be working as a financial counsellor).
7. "Asylum seekers on Christmas Island have access to broadband internet whilst the locals only have dial-up". This is false, asylum seekers have access to the same internet connection that Christmas Island locals have.
There have been articles in the media reporting the abhorrent practice of giving refugees "plasma televisions". In this day and age, television is considered almost a basic human right. Refugees are provided with a start-up pack to assist them in furnishing their accommodation. After all, they have fled persecution and generally arrive with nothing. The furniture start-up pack has basic necessities; beds, dining table, lounge and the much demonised "big screen plasma television". Firstly, they left their own TVs at home in their rush to avoid being raped and murdered. Secondly, the two most common types of televisions available in Australia are LCD or plasma. As for big-screen, refugees may be provided with a 52cm television, hardly big-screen, but then who would put a smaller television into a lounge room?
The prolific circulation of emails and criticism such as these demonise refugees, blame them for our economic ills and accuse them of destroying our way of life.
Debate over refugees needs to be framed rationally and based on truth. Emails such as these contribute nothing constructive to discussions and often incite further hatred and fear against asylum seekers and refugees. Opinions either for or against Australia's refugee intake should be based on facts, not lies, not fear, not racism.
(Image by Barry Deutsch, www.leftycartoons.com, licenced under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licence)
.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Labor canes refugees
The Australian Labor government claimed that Naura could not take asylum seekers because it was not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. Yet the ALP is effectively condoning torture and human rights abuses through their deal to swap refugees with Malaysia. A country known to not respect the human rights of refugees. A country were the cane is regularly used on refugees. Whilst the government claims to have secured guarantees from Malaysia that refugees will not be abused, it is unfathomable that they could be so naive as to believe that Malaysia will abide by this guarantee or that it can be monitored.
To facilitate this deal, the agreement deletes reference to the words "human rights" and describes refugees as "illegal immigrants" which is a despicable untruth and further justifies the vilification and demonisation of refugees.
How can the Labor government possibly do this after years of opposition to Howard's Temporary Protection Visas and Pacific Solution? This deal almost makes those policies appear to be the epitome of compassion by comparison.
Instead of pandering to the xenophobic legacy of the Pacific Solution, the Labor government should show some mettle and defend those who need defending. Refugees are victims, not criminals.
Australia cannot erect a fence around it and be insulated from the rest of the world as the bigotted policies of the Liberal Party would have us believe.
Certainly we don't want to see refugees risking their lives in leaky boats, however, the government's efforts should be directed towards improving processing and increasing quotas rather than subjecting these people to abuse. People smugglers should be the target of the government's punishment, not refugees.
How can the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, state that he doesn't want to see a repeat of the numbers of deaths that have occured from sinking boats and then justify condemning asylum seekers to a brutal and inhumane existence in Malaysia. Mr Bowen states that he doesn't want asylum seekers thinking that there is some sort of exemption in place for them. Is it really so bad if they think that? Why shouldn't the Labor government promote Australia as a beacon of compassion instead of embracing the red-neck, racist vitriol that is permeating our society.
What next? Send them to the Gulags? Reopen concentration camps?
Evidence of the attrocities that refugees face in Malaysia were detailed in an article published in AsiaNews.it on 27 Feb 2009, at http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Burmese-refugees-in-Malaysia-abused,-handcuffed,-victims-of-profiteers-14598.html . The article catalogues such abuses as refugees treated as criminals, handcuffed and held in remote prisons, hundreds packed into cramped rooms, women humiliated and forced to strip in front of guards and squat and then made to remain topless, body searches, and all the while profiteerers exploiting the refugees.
Is this what Australia condones? Men, women & children stripped of their lives, stripped of dignity, punished for being victims? Yet through both the Malaysia and Pacific Solutions this is what Australia is doing and has done.
Instead of defending the indefensible, we should be defending the defenceless!
In the name of decency, human rights, morality, dignity and the original ALP virtue of a fair go for all, the Labor government should rescind this inhumane and irresponsible decision immediately.
-
To facilitate this deal, the agreement deletes reference to the words "human rights" and describes refugees as "illegal immigrants" which is a despicable untruth and further justifies the vilification and demonisation of refugees.
How can the Labor government possibly do this after years of opposition to Howard's Temporary Protection Visas and Pacific Solution? This deal almost makes those policies appear to be the epitome of compassion by comparison.
Instead of pandering to the xenophobic legacy of the Pacific Solution, the Labor government should show some mettle and defend those who need defending. Refugees are victims, not criminals.
Australia cannot erect a fence around it and be insulated from the rest of the world as the bigotted policies of the Liberal Party would have us believe.
Certainly we don't want to see refugees risking their lives in leaky boats, however, the government's efforts should be directed towards improving processing and increasing quotas rather than subjecting these people to abuse. People smugglers should be the target of the government's punishment, not refugees.
How can the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, state that he doesn't want to see a repeat of the numbers of deaths that have occured from sinking boats and then justify condemning asylum seekers to a brutal and inhumane existence in Malaysia. Mr Bowen states that he doesn't want asylum seekers thinking that there is some sort of exemption in place for them. Is it really so bad if they think that? Why shouldn't the Labor government promote Australia as a beacon of compassion instead of embracing the red-neck, racist vitriol that is permeating our society.
What next? Send them to the Gulags? Reopen concentration camps?
Evidence of the attrocities that refugees face in Malaysia were detailed in an article published in AsiaNews.it on 27 Feb 2009, at http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Burmese-refugees-in-Malaysia-abused,-handcuffed,-victims-of-profiteers-14598.html . The article catalogues such abuses as refugees treated as criminals, handcuffed and held in remote prisons, hundreds packed into cramped rooms, women humiliated and forced to strip in front of guards and squat and then made to remain topless, body searches, and all the while profiteerers exploiting the refugees.
Is this what Australia condones? Men, women & children stripped of their lives, stripped of dignity, punished for being victims? Yet through both the Malaysia and Pacific Solutions this is what Australia is doing and has done.
Instead of defending the indefensible, we should be defending the defenceless!
In the name of decency, human rights, morality, dignity and the original ALP virtue of a fair go for all, the Labor government should rescind this inhumane and irresponsible decision immediately.
-
Saturday, May 7, 2011
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 0.18oC 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 2.6oC warmer than 1990. Implementation of Kyoto will result in global temperatures in 2100 being 2.42oC warmer than 1990: a saving of a mere 0.18oC. (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 0.18oC 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:
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):
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:
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 3oC 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 1oC increase in temperature there is a 2.6% increase in heat related deaths. For every 1oC 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.
Rising Sea Levels
Concern has been voiced about rising sea levels. Since 1860 the sea has risen 29cm. Rising sea levels are caused by:
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 -34oC).
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:
Where to from here?
The IPCC has established two solutions for reacting to global warming:
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:
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'.
"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 0.18oC 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 2.6oC warmer than 1990. Implementation of Kyoto will result in global temperatures in 2100 being 2.42oC warmer than 1990: a saving of a mere 0.18oC. (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 0.18oC 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
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.
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 3oC 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 1oC increase in temperature there is a 2.6% increase in heat related deaths. For every 1oC 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.
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
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 -34oC).
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.
Where to from here?
The IPCC has established two solutions for reacting to global warming:
- A - development (economic) solution
- B - environmental (climate change) solution
- 1 - global population focus (cohesion)
- 2 - regional population focus (no cohesion)
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)
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".
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'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)