Home arrow Commentary arrow Editorial arrow War on Terra, Climate Criminals
Jul 25 2007
War on Terra, Climate Criminals | Print |  E-mail
Editorial
By Gideon Polya   
Article Index
War on Terra, Climate Criminals
Page 2
Page 1 of 2

Translation

“Terra” Painting

TERRA – our Planet, the Earth - is under acute threat from Climate Criminals threatening the Third World with Climate Genocide and the Biosphere with Terracide (the killing of our Planet). Words are failing to persuade people to act urgently to save the Planet in a Bush-ite Western world in a morass of Mainstream media lying and spin. As one alternative approach to convince people to act I have painted a huge painting  (1.3 x 2.9 meters)  called “Terra” that attempts to show the beauty of the Earth and its uniqueness in the solar system and, maybe, the Universe. 

If one assumes that the Probability (P) of life arising de novo on a planet like the Earth (Terra) is 1.0 (i.e. 100%, a dead cert) then there will certainly be Life elsewhere in the Universe. However at present Life on Earth is an example of what is called a Singularity in Science – it is the ONLY Planet we presently know of that carries Life.

Accordingly decent, sensible people regard Life and Terra as Singular and Precious.

However the very process of Darwinian Natural Selection (Evolution) that gave rise to Man’s Intelligence and his ability to predict and manage Risk has also given rise to greed. Man has evolved to maximize comfort and survivability but, as illustrated by Western profligacy and the lives of the Rich and Famous, Man just doesn’t know where to stop.

Further, while Altruism has been hard-wired into humans (through natural selection of DNA-based genes), such love of one’s fellow man is largely confined in practice to one’s immediate family. Thus one can readily see how Altruism towards one’s family members would favor survival to breed and pass on the genes concerned (see Richard Dawkins’ seminal book “The Selfish Gene”). However there is no strong mechanism favoring natural selection of Altruism for people in the next valley – people who are competing with your tribe for food and resources. Indeed one reads of horrendous atrocities committed by our social Great Ape cousins the Chimpanzees (genus Pan) – young males will patrol the boundaries of their territory and if they encounter a non-tribe chimpanzee will rip off his arms and legs and leave him to die in screaming agony.

This weakness in our hard-wiring (genes) can of course be overcome by what Richard Dawkins called “memes”, ideas that are selected for socially and passed on by word of mouth, by learned behaviour and  in writing. Thus decent people around the world came to a general realization in the 20th century that racism was wrong and acted to stop the vile manifestations of this pathology e.g. colonialism, imperialism, genocide and racial discrimination (as in Apartheid South Africa and America). This morality was impelled by the writings of great humanitarians and perhaps the most powerful single sentences were “love thy neighbour” (Jesus) and Thomas Jefferson’s powerful “meme”  in the American Declaration of Independence: “All men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. 

Unfortunately this outpouring of human decency hasn’t lasted very long. Thus Racist Zionism has exploited world sympathy over the Jewish Holocaust and has grossly perverted Western values  in relation to racism, colonialism, imperialism and ethnic cleansing – Racist Zionist propaganda has been extraordinarily successful in persuading Mainstream media to variously ignore, accept and support the continuing Racist Zionist crimes in Apartheid Israel (3.8 million Palestinians still imprisoned in what Jewish South African Minister for Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils has described as “a hermetically sealed prison” and  “worse than Apartheid” ). Indeed Western ignoring of Racist Zionist atrocities has enabled the same “politically correct racist” (PC racist) ignoring of US atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan – the post-invasion excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that did to have to happen) in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories now total (as of March 2007) 0.3 million, 1.0 million and 2.4 million , respectively (see MWC News and also here).

However it gets worse. Global warming driven by greenhouse gas pollution (but ultimately by greed, racism and lying) is killing our Planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 which painted a devastating picture of the consequences within the century of failing to act NOW – carbon dioxide concentrations in catastrophic excess of 500 ppm (the level at which there is devastating damage to the critical ocean phytoplankton system and the Greenland ice sheet totally melts; see James Lovelock, “The Revenge of Gaia”), temperature increases of up 4 degrees Centigrade and sea level rises of up to 0.6 metres with a devastating impact on agriculture, flooding of global deltaic regions and an acute threat to the very life of  billions of people (see: here ). A recent, very detailed scientific paper published by top a US climate change expert Dr James Hansen and colleagues in the prestigious Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (see: here) states that the IPCC predictions are under-stated.

As stated by former World Bank Chief Economist Nicholas Stern (and echoed by his predecessor and 2001 Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz), we CAN save the Planet if we act NOW and that it will be vastly cheaper for us to do it urgently. A recent expert Chinese-German review to be published in 2007 in the Annual Review of Environment and  Resources states this of  achivabilty: “By 2020, many targets and scenarios show 20-35% share of electricity from renewables, increasing to 50-80% by 2050 under the highest scenarios”. The real cost of coal-based electricity  (i.e. taking into account its negative impact on the environment and humanity) is about 4 times higher than the current price. At this corrected pricing, appropriately scaled, located and employed exsiting technologies for wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and wave energy are cheaper than coal-based electricity (the nuclear option beloved of power-obsessed Bush-ites is about 3 times more expensive than coal-based electricity and the full nuclear cycle involves major greenhouse gas pollution).

However rational approaches to save the Planet are resolutely opposed by racist, greedy Bush America (the world’s worst greenhouse gas polluter) and Bush-ite Australia (the world’s big country with the worst annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution and the world’s biggest coal exporter). Thus “annual per capita fossil fuel-derived  CO2 pollution” in tonnes CO2/person is 19.2 (for Australia; 40 if you include Australia’s coal exports), 19.7 (the US), 18.4 (Canada), 4.3 (the World (4.2), 3.6 (China), 1.0 ( India) and 0.25 (for Bangladesh). Neither  Bush America nor Bush-ite Australia will sign Kyoto nor cut greenhouse gas pollution – the countries facing devastation from global warming are the below-World-average polluting countries  of China, India and Bangladesh.

In a 2007 address Dr John Holdren, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), identified the 3 major acute risks facing humanity as nuclear weapons, global warming and poverty. Dealing with risk involves Rational Risk Management  that successively involves (a) accurate data (b) scientific analysis and (c) systemic change to minimize risk. The Bush-ites of the Western world, including Australia, regularly pervert this process by (a) lying and censorship, (b) anti-science spin and (c) counterproductive blaming and shaming of suitable victims without sensible systemic change. Indeed in my detailed book “Body Count” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007) I blame a deadly quartet of violence, deprivation, disease and LYING for the current global avoidable mortality holocaust associated with 16 million  avoidable deaths annually (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”).

Science, technology, economics and reason can save the Planet – but reason is being defied by the lying of corrupt, greedy, racist, Bush-ite Climate Criminals on a path that will see horrendous Climate Genocide and indeed Terracide in relation to the biosphere. Silence kills and silence is complicity. We are obliged to protect our children and our grandchildren by countering the Bush-ite lying.

If you agree with this message and share the love of our unique Planet that I have tried to convey in my painting “Terra” then spread the message and send  this article and the “Terra” image to everyone you know. 

Dr Gideon Polya,  MWC News Chief political editor, published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003), and is currently writing a book on global mortality ---
Other articles by this author 

Recommend this article...



Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Newsvine!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Quote this article on your site | Views: 10311

Comments (54)
RSS comments
1. 25-07-2007 17:21
Researcher
The 100 year old con www.InteliOrg.com/archive/FireandIce.pdf on climate change. 
 
In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point www.InteliOrg.com/
Guest
2. 25-07-2007 22:37
Criminal Bush-ite climate denial
The above utterly FALSE comment illustrates the fundamental global problem of criminal Bush-ite spin and denial in relation to the overhwelming international global scientific consensus on greenhouse gas-driven climate change and the acute threat to our children and grandchildren. 
 
Indeed the sharp differences now emerging WITHIN that consensus relate to the time frame to disaster. The 2007 IPCC Report was watered down through Bush Administration pressure - now Dr James Hansen (America's foremost climate change expert; NASA's Goddard Center) and his collleagues say (in the prestigous Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society) that the IPCC consensus UNDER-ESTIMATED the rate of ice melting (it is happening much faster than predicted) and albedo change (reflectivity decline through replacement of white ice with dark water). 
 
Indeed Professor James Lovelock FRS (the Gaia Hypothesis) in his latest book "The Revenge of Gaia" says that it is almost too late to stop CO2 in the atmosphere increasing from the current 380 ppm to 500ppm (at which point the ocean phytopklankton system goes into crisis and the Greenland Ice sheet vanishes). 
 
I have been a scientist for 4 decades. Over 4 decades ago in the 1960s I was taught the basic physics and chemistry of spectroscopy (light absorption) and fundamentals of physical causality - my organic chemistry teachers then were aghast that we were BURNING the feedstock (oil) of organic chemical industry that is so fundamental to modern life (just look around you as you read this and see the plastics, the fabrics, the light fittings, the book covers, the paint on your walls, the medicine you have taken today, the packaging of your food etc etc etc). 
 
Ten years on in the 1970s I was made urgently aware of the finiteness of the earth's atmosphere that had become THEN of major concern to environmental scientists, plant physiologists, biophysicists, hydrologists etc. 
 
By the 1990s the broad picture of the unfolding disaster was emerging in the top scientific literature (e.g. top journals such as Science and Nature)- the effects on sea level and tropical and sub-tropical agriculture were the most serious threats. So concerned was I that I took time from my "regular" scientifc concerns and wrote a book about it entitled "Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability". 
 
Now in the middle of the first decade of 21st century the world'stop climate experts are telling us that it is almost TOO LATE to stop devastating consequences of climate change. The IPCC in a previous Assessment Report indicated various scenarios depending upon the vigour of global responses - the harsh reality is that the ACTUAL CO2 increase is following the WORST and most CATASTROPHIC scenario, despite Kyoto and despite concern by most governments throughout the world.  
 
The LETHARGY of the response is due in large measure to GREED and the profound dishonesty, corruption, spin and LYING of the Bush-ite climate criminals of which the worst offenders by far are Bush America (the world's worst greenhouse gas polluter) and the extreme right-wing, racist, Bush-ite climate criminals running Australia (the world's biggest coal exporter). 
 
The situation is acutely serious - this is about your OWN security as well as that of your children and grandchildren. There must be zero tolerance for climate criminal lying and denial that amounts to "prospective holocaust denial" but denial of a looming holocaust THIS CENTURY that is 100 times bigger (according to the UK's Chief Scientist) than the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million victims)or the man-made WW2 Bengali Holocaust (4 million victims but "rubbed out " of history by racist, lying DENIERS).
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
3. 26-07-2007 10:02
Global warming scam exposed
The conartinst Al Gore is trying to swindle the world. Here are just a few of his lies exposed. 
 
Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are  
growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."  
 
Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet  
according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."  
 
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.  
 
Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane  
scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.  
 
Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."  
 
Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins  
and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.  
 
Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of  
Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently,  
scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change  
panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.  
 
Lets stop Gorebull Warnings.
Guest
4. 26-07-2007 13:00
World's scientists vs Bush-ite spin
There is an overwhelming international scientific consensus over the reality of global warming and the acute threat it poses to the world. 
 
Thus in realtion to Australia, our premier scientific research organization CSIRO has shown that the sea temperature in the Indian Ocean has increased by about 2 degrees centigrade in 40 YEARS with huge implications for further drought in this dry continent (data confirmed by satellite imaging from NASA). 
 
Readers of this column have to choose between the expert determinations and serious warnings by the IPCC, the Royal Society of the UK, the National Academy of Sciences, NASA and the AAAS of the United States and comparable scientific organizations around the world VERSUS the abusive denunciations of an anonymous supporter of the corrupt, dishonest and utterly irresponsible Bush Administration. 
 
Scientists are typically conservative, modestly paid and in general have NO major vested interests in fossil fuel- , transport-, military- or construction-related sales.  
 
However the major Bush-ite political and corporate climate change deniers DO have such huge vested financial interests. 
 
America and indeed other Western countries have laws against commercial information-related abuses such as \\\"insider trading\\\" for personal profit against the public interest.  
 
Americans with vested corporate and political interests who fly in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus over climate change at the expense of public welfare - \\\"all the truth that money can buy\\\" - have the same kind of moral culpability as \\\"insider traders\\\" and when MASSIVE DEATH ensues (as is likely to the extent of hundreds of milllions in the Third World according to the IPVCC and the UK\\\'s Chief Scientist) will be complicit in mass murder. 
 
Indeed that is why a Britsh group (Bring Climate Criminals to Justice) has been formed to promote legislation to bring the climate criminals and climate genocidists to justice.  
 
Those jeopardizing the health and safety of Americans and indeed of everyone in the world for personal gain and in the face of overwhelming expert evidence should face the same kind of legal retribution dealt to those involved in insider trading, other corrupt business practices as well as acute threat to public safety.  
 
Bush and his confreres can be legitimately described as climate terrorists.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">DrGideon Polya
5. 26-07-2007 14:25
World's scientists vs Bush-ite spin
Zionists? It's amazing the way that you promote "climate change" awareness (eco-communism) by using an inordinate and alarming amount of your article to put forth your evil anti-semitic hatred. You truly are a monster.
Guest
daniel
6. 26-07-2007 17:24
re=Robert G
Quote:
 
The conartinst Al Gore is trying to swindle the world. Here are just a few of his lies exposed.  
 
I don't see any quote from Al Gore here. Could you wait until we publish his article so your rhetoric won't become irrelevant?
Guest
Shahram
7. 26-07-2007 19:58
Of course the globe is warming!
I'm not a scientist, nor do I have a bunch of scientific literature stacked up for me to go through for reference. But, to borrow a phrase from a good friend, “I am a thinker”. I read and keep my eyes and ears open to various dialog (after all, I even read your article) and have decided that it is no surprise that there is global warming. After all, it has happened many times in the past, and we weren’t even here then. We just came out of the "Little Ice Age" that started sometime about 1300 A.D. I have also heard reports that the radiant energy from the sun has risen noticeably in the past few decades. The "snowcaps" of Mars have been receding also (are we to blame for that too?). I have also read articles about how natural phenomena, rather than mankind’s feeble environmental contributions, could be the REAL culprit. So, yes, I agree with you that global warming is occurring, but what should we do about it? Perhaps, in order to save the petrochemicals from being used as fuel, we should reinvest in nuclear energy. The new reactors that have been designed are the only source of hydrogen gas that doesn’t cost more energy to produce than you get out of using it for fuel as the hydrogen is produced as a byproduct. That way, we would be able to have electrical energy (can you say goodbye to blackouts and brownouts?) as well as emission free (except for water) fuel for transportation. Then we can REALLY figure out what we CAN do regarding global warming.  
 
PS Where are the enviromentalists standing on NASA's plans to "Terraform" Mars with giant polution generators? Just wondering.
Guest
wa6ksf@yahoo.comNOSPAM! ">Dave W
8. 26-07-2007 21:42
Top scientists: warming man-made
According to top UK and US scientists, changes in solar irradiance CANNOT explain the marked global warming over the last 40 years.  
 
From the highly-respected UK New Scientist (11 July 2007), de-bunking the latest "greenhouse denial" campaign, QUOTE: Direct satellite measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures, according to new research. 
 
The findings debunk an explanation for climate change that is often cited by people who are not convinced that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing the Earth's climate to warm." END QUOTE 
 
Again, readers of this thread must decide between a n overhwelming global scientific consensus (e.g. the IPCC, the US National Academy of Science,the US AAAS, the UK Royal Society, other national scientific bodies, Australia's CSIRO, outstanding individual scientist (NASA's Dr James Hansen, the UK Chief Scientist, major popular and technical Sceince journals such as Science, Nature and the generalist review journal New Scientist etc etc VERSUS  
the dangerous denial and obfuscation of anonymous bloggers as evidenced on this thread.  
 
If you were ill (e.g. in Australia, with affordable health services for everyone - unlike Bush Amerika [see SICKO] ) you would go to a General Practitioner doctor (6 years university training, several years hospital training,  
specialist GP training, and then possibly decades of further professional experience). Indeed you might then be referred to a specialist doctor (with another decade of specialist training in the area concerned e.g. a physician, surgeon, ophthalmologist, ENT, dermatologist, oncologist etc). 
If you don't like what you hear you can get a SECOND EXPERT OPINION. 
 
My brief list above amounts to millions of expert scientific opinions from highly trained scientists without vested financial interests (indeed quite the reverse) and subject to acute professional ethical constraint VERSUS the ignorant prejudices of an unknown anonymous blogger reflecting the corrupt, lying, human rights abusing, racist Bush Administration and its corporate friends.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
9. 26-07-2007 22:15
Scientists VS Bush-ite liars, racists &
Post #5 assertion \\\"Zionism? ...your evil anti-semitic hatred. You truly are a monster\\\" is FALSE, profoundly offensive, ad hominem abuse, evidently from a pro-Zionist with the courage of anonymity who wishes to convince people that conquest, disempowerment, dispossession, and displacement of Indigenous Palestinians (7 million refugees to date, 4.3 million registered with the UN) is just dandy.  
 
Well such RACIST genocide,ethnic cleansing, what you will is simply NOT dandy - and neither is the threat of displacement this century of literally hundreds of millions of Pakistanis, Nigerians, Indians, Bangladeshis, Thais, Vietnamese and Chinese from deltaic regions threatened by global warming, sea-level rise and storm surges deriving from irresponsible, intrinsically RACIST and dishonest Bush American and Bush-ite Australian and Canadian industrial profligacy and CO2 pollution. 
 
PS the Nazis wiped my family from Europe. False defamation of Jews opposing Zionist human right abuses (e.g. of outstanding humanitarians such as Professor Norman Finkelstein) is quintessential \\\"anti-Jewish anti-Semtism\\\" - and the false abuse of non-Jews for holding the SAME anti-racist opinions is EQUALLY REPUGNANT. 
 
Virulent pro-Zionist fanatics calling anti-racist, humanitarian Jewish and non-Jewish critics of israel \\\"anti-semites\\\" can be readily seen as being explicitly guilty of BOTH anti-Jewish anti-Semitism and anti-Arab anti-Semitism. They also devalue the term by this gross abuse of language and decent behaviour and accordingly diminish the seriousness of REAL anti-semitism past and present (e.g. of the czarist regimes, the Nazis that Bush\\\'s grandfather helped to put in power and the Arab mass murdering Racist Religious Right Republican (R4) Bush-ites).  
 
Of course the R4 Bush-ites and their ilk were traditionally anti-semitic in BOTH senses but have mofiied this position by supporting Racist Zionists (Jews who kill Arabs and Muslims and hence help secure OIL for America) and having a virulent hatred for Arabs and Muslims (anti-Arab anti-Semitism and Islamophobia), for anti-racist, humanitarian Jews (anti-Jewish anti-semitism) and indeed militant hatred for ALL decent people trying to save the Planet from corporate, Bush-ite greed and RACISM.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
10. 30-07-2007 12:25
Positive feedback
It is odd how spin can confuse reality. I watched a program about global warming. And it was shown that solar activity caused global warming in the past, and Co2 lagged behind the warming. But what was later revealed, is the Co2 released from the oceans due to solar heating, acted like a catalyst, dragging the temperature higher than would have happened with just solar heating.  
The sun may or may not be heating up,(I think we are in a warming period), but what comes from these observations by  
scientists is that Co2 does cause warming. The evidence is that the present warming is due to solar worming then we had better watch out, i.e. the sun heats the oceans, the oceans give up Co2, that will further increase the warming, plus we release ancient Co2 on top of all that. That is a new combination. Is that the un-spun picture? 
 
Mike
Guest
11. 30-07-2007 15:40
CO2 causing global warming
Increased solar activity (increased solar irradiance) has contributed to global warming in the past, but for the last 40 years global temoerature has been steadily increasing in parallel with atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) while solar irradiance has essentially remained the same i.e. it is increased CO2 in the atmophere that is causing the increased global temperature.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
12. 08-08-2007 13:22
AGW Is The Crime
First, "consensus" does not equate to fact. It makes for fine politics, but poor science. 
 
Second, every iota of time, effort and monies spent on the facade of AGW is that much less that can be used to actually prepare for the coming global warming. 
 
The AGW supporters are the true criminals. 
 
Oh, and, Dr. Polya - Your coined word, terracide, is hilariously inept. The Earth is a large ball of rock. The thin smear of biosphere on its surface is irrelevant to its existence. The Earth would do quite nicely with or without it and does not have the presence to realize the difference in any case.
Guest
CK
13. 08-08-2007 13:50
Top scientists VS anonymous Bush-ites
Science is of course about sensible scepticism - indeed the scientifc method involves the critical testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses. 
 
However on extremely serious matters sensible people sensibly defer to top expert opinion and authoritative collective scientific opinion (even brilliant scientists are typically only expert in their speciality). 
 
Thus on personal medical matters only a fool would ignore expert medical advice and an even greater fool would ignore the same advice given in further independent medical opinions. 
 
No doubt few if any readers of MWC News - including those with scientific backgrounds and indeed scientific research backgrounds - are experts on climatology or atmospheric physics. Accordingly they have to rely on expert collective opinions just as they have to rely on expert medical opinions (and expert second opinions) in relation to the health of themselves or their loved ones. 
 
Thus readers of this thread have to decide between the collective wisdom of major scientific bodies warning of impending DISASTER from global warming (e.g. the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the world's biggest general scientific organization), the US National Academy of Science, the British Royal Society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change etc) VERSUS the dangerous and anti-social climate change denial of anonymous Bush-ite bloggers and of corrupt, racist, terracidal, Bush-ite climate criminals such as the Bush Administration and its extreme right wing ally in climate genocide, the Bush-ite Australian Government. 
 
The Bush-ite flat-earthers in relation to anthropogenic global warming are akin to those who (for whatever reasons) deny the link between cigarette smoking and premature death from lung cancer and cardiovascular problems (cigarette smoking kills about 5 million people around the world and about 400,000 Americans EACH YEAR. Global warming is already contributing to the annual avoidable global mortality of 16 million each year - but threatens the lives of a billion people this century.  
 
TERTRACIDE clearly refers to the killing of the BIOSPHERE (you can't kill inanimate things). For an alarming recent account of ongoing Terracide read Professor James Lovelock's recent book "The Revenge of Gaia" (London, 2006)in which he considers that we may have already passed the point of no return in terms of irreversible damage to planet temperature homestatic (balancing) mechanisms.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
14. 08-08-2007 19:01
Top scientists VS anonymous Bush-ites
You do realize, Dr. Polya, that your immature use of "Bush-ite" severely damages your credibility. Indeed, it makes me question your very credentials. I doubt that someone who had gone through a doctorate program would use such juvenile terms in any serious manner.
Guest
15. 08-08-2007 22:27
Bush-ite, neocon, fascist, Nazi, pro-Bus
False ad hominem abuse doesn\'t constitute sensible comment - so why do Bush-ites commonly argue this way?  
 
In EFFICIENTLY and ACCURATELY describing those supporting the general Bush line of market-only economics, invasion and occupation of other countries, global warming denial, human rights abuse, committing but strenuously ignoring or deny horrendous war crimes (ideally in ONE word as opposed to a detailed explanatory paragraph as in the detailed explanations of insurance policies), Bush-ite is probably best in terms of accuracy. 
 
Bush-ite means \"adhering to the general line of Bush\" just as Stakhanovite (entrenched in the English language for about 70 years now) means \"adhering to the general indefatigable work line of Soviet labor Hero Stakhanov and Chomsky-ite means adhering to the general Chomsky line of opposition to invasion, occupation, ethnic cleansing, human rights abuse etc. 
 
You can Google these words to confirm their widespread usage ( I have been aware of the word Stakhanovite for 5 decades!). Thus Stakhanovite yields 38,200 URLs; Bush-ite 91,200 (83,900 without the hyphen - some robots reject the buried coprological, scatological, fecal (faecal) term), chomskyite yields 63,900. 
 
OTHER TERMS often applied to Bush-ites are much less accurate and some could give offence. Thus many neocons or neoconservatives follow much of the Bush line but some major neocon CEOs (even of fossil fuel companies) who necessarily practise World\'s Best Practice Rational Risk Management recognize the dangerous reality of anthropogenic global warming. 
 
Fascist gets much closer- government by a collection of corporate interests (big business, military-industrial complex, gangster-run labor unions - hence the derivation from the Roman Senate symbol of the \"fasces\", a bundle of sticks)and of course is associated with invasion and occupation of other countries, implicit racism, warmongering, imperialism and war crimes.  
 
Ditto Nazism (with the added feature of explicit Aryan-upholding racism and anti-Semitism)- fascism and Nazism have many features in common with the Bush line (indeed Bush\'s grandfather jhelped the Nazis to power in Germany in the 1930s) but this terminology is also imprecise. The Bush-ite type people e.g. the Racist Religious Right Republicans (R4s) USED to be extremely anti-Jewish anti-Semitic but have now (at least publicly) given that obscenity away for the equally repugnant cause of anti-Arab anti-semtism (in which they find common cause with the Racist Zionists, notwithstanding their former deep hatred of all Jews). 
 
Pro-Bush is not very accurate either - thus I APPLAUD Bush\'s early action to approve money for combating arsenic in American water supplies AND his recent description of Bomber Obama\'s promise to unilaterally invade Pakistan as \"unsavoury\". 
 
No, Bush-ite wins on precedence, common English usage, accuracy and efficiency grounds for describing those following the general Bush line - and its use is certainly NOT \"immature\".
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon polya
16. 09-08-2007 12:23
Bush-ite, neocon, fascist, Nazi, pro-Bus
"False ad hominem abuse doesn\'t constitute sensible comment - so why do Bush-ites commonly argue this way?" 
 
Do you mean by the use of demeaning terms such as "Bush-ite?" 
 
You may try to rationalize it all you like, but the common usage of this term is to belittle the president of the United States. 
 
Or, is it by the juvenile use of "Bomber Obama?" 
 
You criticize ad hominem abuse by using it? 
 
That aside, my point has been made. The Earth is not a living thing, therefore it can have no "-cide" against it. Your coining this phrase demeans and belittles those who are true victims of this - of true genocide, or homicide. You bring their status to that of dirt.
Guest
17. 10-08-2007 04:17
Bush-ite, neocon, fascist, Nazi, pro-Bus
Referring to: 
|That aside, my point has been made. *The Earth is not a living thing, therefore it can have no "-cide" against it|. 
*Am I reading you right CK, you have to be joking if you are implying that. 
Also the president of the US, does not need protection coping flack goes with the territory. 
After all God cops flack from some. 
Mike.
Guest
18. 10-08-2007 05:44
Bomber Obama & Terracide
Well said Mike. X-cide means killing X and terracide means killing what CAN be killed on earth i.e. the biosphere. 
 
Re #16, and Bush-ite see #15 and the widespread use of the words Bush-ite, Stakhanov-ite and Chomsky-ite. Bush-ite is only a demeaning term to the extent that Bush is a liar, thief, war criminal and mass child killer according to UN Population Division, WHO and UNICEF statistics. Literature Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter (who is a Nobel Laureate in USE OF WORDS) demanded in his Nobnel Prize address that Bush be tried as a war criminal and mass murderer. 
 
Googling for the word Terracide yields 144,000 URLs, terracide and earth 983, Terracide and planet 875 and Terracide and Polya 134 - I can claim only limited credit for this important neologism (new word). 
 
As for Bomber Obama - the English language tells us that a Bomber is someone who bombs or is committed to bombing - and Bomber Obama has certainly done that and in doing so greatly alarmed the whole World, not least his intended Pakistani victims. Googling the words Bomber Obama yields 929,000 URLs. 
 
The real bottom line is that the words of the English language and their usage constitute meaning - obfuscating such meaning as in post #16 is reminiscent of Orwellian Newspeak: war is peace, ignorance is strength and slavery is freedom (precisely war criminal Bush's line on Haiti, Somalia, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan ... who is next?)
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Gideon Polya
19. 10-08-2007 12:27
Bomber Obama & Terracide
mike said, "Am I reading you right CK, you have to be joking if you are implying that." 
 
You read it exactly right. 
 
The Earth is a ball of minerals with a veneer of biomass smeared on its surface. It is not a living thing. It does not live, therefore it can not die. 
 
Science 101.
Guest
20. 10-08-2007 12:38
Bomber Obama & Terracide
Dr. Polya said, "X-cide means killing X and terracide means killing what CAN be killed on earth i.e. the biosphere." 
 
You're changing your tune, doctor. Why is that? 
 
In the very first paragraph of the article you wrote, above, you state - and, plainly so - "Terracide (the killing of our Planet)." 
 
You make no distinction about the biosphere. You clearly wrote, "our Planet." 
 
"Bush-ite is only a demeaning term to the extent that Bush is a liar, thief, war criminal and mass child killer according to UN Population Division, WHO and UNICEF statistics." 
 
You are using it as a demeaning term and are allowing emotion to overcome reason. 
 
"Literature Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter (who is a Nobel Laureate in USE OF WORDS) demanded in his Nobnel Prize address that Bush be tried as a war criminal and mass murderer." 
 
Relevancy? 
 
Mr. Pinter can have any opinion he likes; that does not make him correct. His words make him another irrational hater. He can be dismissed as any other toddler in a tantrum. 
 
"Googling for the word Terracide yields 144,000 URLs, terracide and earth 983, Terracide and planet 875 and Terracide and Polya 134 - I can claim only limited credit for this important neologism (new word)." 
 
I suspect that I can find plenty of hits on a hollow Earth with a civilization inside - doesn't make it true. 
 
Further, just because something is on the Internet, does not make it true. 
 
"As for Bomber Obama - the English language tells us that a Bomber is someone who bombs or is committed to bombing - and Bomber Obama has certainly done that and in doing so greatly alarmed the whole World, not least his intended Pakistani victims. Googling the words Bomber Obama yields 929,000 URLs." 
 
The use of the label is juvenile and petty. It accomplishes nothing and merely gives you an outlet for your immature rants. As for the Google hits, I refer you to my response immediately prior. 
 
 
"The real bottom line is that the words of the English language and their usage constitute meaning" 
 
Yes, they do. 
 
And, your meaning and use is clearly to belittle and demean both Bush and Obama. 
 
Any denial is a lie.
Guest
21. 10-08-2007 14:17
Bush & Obama demean themselves
How silly! There are 2 kinds of people in this world, those who believe in invading, bombing, occupying other countries and those who don't.  
 
Readers of this thread can decide between the wisdom of an outstanding Nobel Prize winning writer and the statistics of the UN, WHO, Johns Hopkins and UNICEF VS the stance of a mass murdering war criminal, a prospective war criminal and their anonymous Bush-ite apologists. Thous shalt not kill.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
22. 10-08-2007 18:44
Bush & Obama demean themselves
I see the good doctor has chosen not to answer the question I asked. 
 
I wonder why that is?
Guest
23. 11-08-2007 03:51
Lets move on
Quote:
 
The Earth is a ball of minerals with a veneer of biomass smeared on its surface. It is not a living thing. It does not live, therefore it can not die.  
 
Science 101. 
 
 
I fail to understand what point are you trying to make here. Are you trying to prove because you can not kill (note: destruction is killing) earth therefore there are no threats? 
 
 
Because it is also an elementary science, and common knowledge that everything on this planet including the earth itself contains of some little particles, called electrons , protons and neutrons which are very much alive, hence earth like everything else can be destroyed or killed (by this I mean lost of the reason, purpose, behaviour or functionlity.) 
 
However whether you believe the above statement or not that does not change the fact that mankind had contributed and continue doing so to destruction of all lives on this planet, which is the subject of this discussion in case you've missed it. 
 
The evidence and facts are so overwhelming that no longer would allow septics to plea ignorant. It is a lame attempt to divert the discussion to "but you said that and I said this".
Registered
24. 11-08-2007 03:49
Lets move on
And Shahram and you've only scratch the surface, is that a pun? 
But I believe any person that has the dead earth mentality is a lost cause. 
It's like a person living in a world of monochrome, arguing with somebody trying to explain the beauty of a rainbow. 
Be careful with words, there are 
many things that just cannot be put into words CK. Also words can be tricky, thats why Lawyers 
drive flash cars.
Registered
25. 13-08-2007 12:48
Lets move on
Shahram Vahdany said, "I fail to understand what point are you trying to make here. Are you trying to prove because you can not kill (note: destruction is killing) earth therefore there are no threats?" 
 
I thought my point was quite clear. 
 
I'll reiterate; the Earth is not a living organism. Therefore, it cannot die. 
 
"However whether you believe the above statement or not that does not change the fact that mankind had contributed and continue doing so to destruction of all lives on this planet, which is the subject of this discussion in case you've missed it." 
 
But, Man's contribution is lost in the noise of Nature's contribution. 
 
However, if you are going to condemn Man for his "contribution," then I suggest you condemn ALL life on the planet, for EACH contributes. 
 
As for the subject of the discussion, I suggest that it is, "War on Terra, Climate Criminals" and further described by the very first sentence in Dr. Polya's treatise; "TERRA – our Planet, the Earth - is under acute threat from Climate Criminals threatening the Third World with Climate Genocide and the Biosphere with Terracide (the killing of our Planet)." 
 
I have addressed the topic directly. I am countering Dr. Polya's assertion that the Earth is suffering "terracide (the killing of our Planet)," by demonstrating that the Earth is not a living organism. 
 
So, where have I "missed the subject?"null
Guest
26. 13-08-2007 12:54
Lets move on
Mike Keenor said, "Be careful with words, there are many things that just cannot be put into words CK." 
 
Everything can be put into words, that is the function of language. 
 
Dr. Polya has twisted language by making assertions of qualities that do not exist. Namely, that the Earth is a living thing. 
 
Maybe he's very poetic and artistic, but he is not factual. And, if he is going to rely upon his scientific credentials to make claims of fact, then poetry has no place. 
 
Only facts. 
 
The FACT is that the Earth is not capable of suffering "terracide." To claim that it is, is merely an attempt to anthropomorphize the planet. To do so, leaves the realm of science and fact behind and enter the realm of fiction. 
 
Was Dr. Polya's intent to write fiction above? 
 
If so, then my criticism is unfounded and I will apologize. 
 
But, I seriously doubt that he was intending to write fiction...
Guest
27. 13-08-2007 14:05
Terracide means killing life on earth
Oh so silly or is it worse than mere silliness? Why this utterly perverse obfuscation of an acutely serious matter? One can only kill things that are living - and but for a surface smear of life the earth is inanimate. Terracide clearly means death of LIFE (living things, biomes, the biosphere) on earth - and is certainly USED by those using the term to mean EXACTLY THAT.  
 
Those who deny, ignore or obfuscate this acute threat to humanity and indeed to many other forms of Life on Earth are dangerously irresponsible and indeed complicit in the looming terracide.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polyag
28. 13-08-2007 17:47
You're Changing Your Tune, Dr.
Now, "Terracide means killing life on earth." 
 
But, in the article above, terracide means "the killing of our Planet." 
 
Dr. Polya said, "Terracide clearly means death of LIFE (living things, biomes, the biosphere) on earth - and is certainly USED by those using the term to mean EXACTLY THAT." 
 
Obviously, not that clearly as you misused the term either in your articel, above, or in your responses. 
 
Which is it really, doctor? 
 
Is terracide the "killing of our planet," or "killing life on Earth?" 
 
Now, as for global warming, I believe that it is happening, but not that Man is causing it. Man's contribution is drowned by the vastness of Nature.
Guest
29. 13-08-2007 21:53
SCIENTISTS - Warming man-made
In response to the determined and dangerous ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty and irresponsibility of climate change deniers (witness the egregious stupidity, ignorance, falsehood and irresponsibility routinely exhibited by climate change flat-earthers in public access Web sites and in lying, racist, Bush-ite Mainstream media) the prestigious British Royal Society has produced a clear statement on climate change that, in short, says that the current global warming is MAN-MADE and we must address it URGENTLY: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229 . 
 
After dealing with 8 misleading arguments (#1 being the ignorant, dangerous and irresponsible denial of the man-made cause of current global warming) the Royal Society states, QUOTE:  
"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable". 
 
The repeated, FALSE and indeed abusive assertion that those using the term TERRACIDE are referring to “death of inanimate matter” (an impossibility) is an obfuscatory, abusive and false NONSENSE. Sensible people are OBLIGED to respond to Bush-ite, flat-earther stupidity, ignorance and irresponsibility that threatens LIFE on this planet i.e. that threatens TERRACIDE.  
 
Further, Readers of this thread must consider who they should believe: the considered opinion of the prestigious UK Royal Society (and of the US AAAS, the US NationAal Academy of Science, Australia’s CSIRO, the IPCC and indeed the overwhelming international scientific consensus) OR the false, abusive rhetoric of anonymous Bush-ite greenhouse deniers and the lies of the Bush-ite corporate climate criminals threatening the Earth (i.e. the HUMANITY of Earth, not the inanimate Earth ... duh) with climate genocide.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
30. 15-08-2007 09:00
SCIENTISTS - Warming man-made
Referring to: 
 
Lets move on 
Mike Keenor said, "Be careful with words, there are many things that just cannot be put into words CK."  
 
Everything can be put into words, that is the function of language.  
 
Actually I wrote: 
Be careful with words, there are  
many things that just cannot be put into words CK. Also words can be tricky, thats why Lawyers  
drive flash cars. 
 
You proved my statement with all this rhetoric over 'terracide'. 
I also stand firm on the first part of the statement, it is something to with intuition. 
But if you feel you have proven you point, o.k. 
 
I notice they are rushing to the north pole, some are saying the polar cap will be melted in 50 years or so, of course nothing to do mans with activity, but what activity? CK. 
 
Mike
Guest
31. 15-08-2007 14:47
choped up grammer
I apologize for my chopped up grammar, but I have mild dyslexia. 
It can be a bit of a nuisance. 
 
Mike
Registered
32. 15-08-2007 15:58
choped up grammer
As Dr. Polya has twirled off into irrationality, I shall address the rational poster... 
 
Mike said, "I notice they are rushing to the north pole, some are saying the polar cap will be melted in 50 years or so, of course nothing to do mans with activity, but what activity? CK." 
 
Some say many things. 
 
Some say that the Earth is hollow and there is an advanced civilization living within. 
 
Just because some say things, doesn't make those things true. Or, even credible.null
Guest
33. 15-08-2007 22:09
Top scientists vs warming deniers
Readers of this thread - false, ad hominem (person-directed) abuse does NOT constitute a rational argument. 
 
Further, adducing (a) documented , authoritative statistics and (b)the considered and expert opinions of top national and international scientific bodies scientific in relation to anthropogenic global warming is vastly more RATIONAL than the conduct of those who do neither.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
34. 16-08-2007 11:06
Top scientists vs warming deniers
How can anybody believe all the global warming hype when the basic data used for the global warming argument is flawed. This past week NASA quietly corrected and error and updated the temperature recorded. The change push 1998 out of first place for record high temperatures for the continental US. 1934 is now in first place. Although the change was small it points out just how flawed the global warming argument is. If you can't trust the raw data you sure can not trust all the scare stories that come from the computer models based on flawed raw data. Lets see if Al Gore ever updates his graphs to reflect the change.
Guest
35. 16-08-2007 11:35
Science about scepticism, testing
Post #34 illustrates a fundmental popular misconception about science, specifically that it is about certainty. Science is ACTUALLY about critically testing potentially falsifiable hypotheses with more accurate new data and new types of experiments.  
 
The world's scientists and the world's top scientific organizations remain acutely concerned about man-made global warming e.g. see the UK Royal Society's April 2007 "climate change controversies: a simple guide" in which they de-bunk 8 commonly employed misleading srguments against anthropogenic global warming.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polyag
36. 01-09-2007 12:48
Australian society and climate change
With Melbourne headed for a record forty-day rainless spell and its driest year on record - this after ten sucessive years with rainfall below 1885 to 1996 averages, denying global warming is of itself futile. 
 
However, the real situation is doubly - even triply - worse. 
 
Firstly, Australia has the most ecologically fragile environment in the world - both on land and at sea its productivity is a fraction that of Europe or North America, and without an upwelling its climate changes much more rapidly. Instead of having per capita greenhouse gas emissions four times that fo Denmark or Sweden, Australia should only be allowed - by every international environment group - one hundredth to one five-hundredth Europe's per capita greenhouse emissions. That would have entailed a plan way back in the early 1990s to completely abolish Australia's polluting industries and achieve by 2005 100 percent renewable energy and complete abolition of all car travel, long-distance road freight and domestic airways. A 200-250 km/h rail network covering all capital cities and the Wet Tropics could replace it with little loss of mobility, whilst with public transit running every two minutes insterad of every hour, there would be no mobility loss within cities. 
 
Yet, the sad reality is that, for at least forty years, climate criminals have had such a dictatorship of Australian policy that 98 percent of transport investment is in roads, and a similar proportion of energy investment is coal. Australian transport investment needs for sustainability to be 100 percent rail without a single new road built. 
 
Worse still, Australia is a fundamentally different society from Europe. Whereas in Europe, femininity and self-effacement are thoroughly reviled and religion practically non-existent, in Australia the traditional feminine ideals of self-sacrifice and humility survive, at least in outer suburbs where young voters come from. These ideals might be great in theory but the lack of self-assertiveness is a fundamental cause of Australia's appalling environment record because its people lack the self-confidence to challenge the climate criminals and demand decent environmental policy. Much deeper emotional ties also make essential changes impossible. Whereas in Europe change is adored, in outer suburban Australia it is feared as emotionally painful.  
 
With the small progressive sector of Australian society reproducing at a third the rate of the most conservative outer suburban groups, the prospect of even modest improvements in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions is nil. Instead of investment in renewable energy, we will get conversion of coal to oil even when - to happen this summer - Melbourne's dams receive their last runoff before the city descends into what was once the climate of Oodnadatta and other remote Outback locations. 
 
It is as fearsome to imagine what Australia will look like as I am angry at the failure of Australians to fight for seizure of the immense wealth of the climate criminals - whose legacy extends before global wamring was ever discussed with the appalling Lonie Report which has been the basis for the most appalling wastage of money on freeway in Melbourne. 
 
(I hope every last Melburnian imagines what it would be like with: 
 
- every suburb in reach of rail and tram lines 
- services every two minutes to even the outermost suburbs at 4:00 
- no cars to interfere with trams or buses)
Guest
jpbenney@gmail.comNOSPAM! ">Julien Peter Benney
37. 01-09-2007 14:36
Climate criminals & Oz
Julien, I agree wholeheartedly with your very sensible and informed analysis of Australian domestic realities. The Australian neo-con climate criminals are not just threatening the Third World (see my article \"Climate criminals & climate genocide. Anglo-Celtia threatens final Bengali Holocaust\" on MWC News at the link below) - they are acutely threatening Australians. 
 
What Australians don\'t know - but which is IMPLICIT in your analysis - is that there is a huge GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY of fossil fuel-based energy in Australia that is of the order of A$10 billion annually (direct fuel subsidy, roads, highways etc) and that doesn\'t include the huge legal, policing, medical and mortality costs of fossil fuel-based energy and transport.  
 
According to climatelaw.org: \"Currently in Australia, total energy and transport subsidies (fossil fuel subsidies). are between $9.3 billion and $10.1 billion.\"  
 
Unfortunately there is criminal bipartisan support for chopping down forests, mining coal, fossil fuel-based energy, mining uranium (the nuclear cycle can be just a CO2 polluting overall as gas-based electricity) and radial expansion of cities without proper investment in requisite public transport. 
 
What can people do? I research and write and belong to a Climate Action Group.  
 
GetUp (see: http://www.getup.org.au/ ) has a petition for the September APEC meeting in Sydney demanding IMMEDIATE ACTION on climate change by the major nations - 80,852 people have signed so far!. Everyone should join Get Up and have their voice heard on Climate Change and related human rights and sustainability matters.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
38. 27-12-2007 15:13
Climate criminals & Oz
\"My brief list above amounts to millions of expert scientific opinions...\"  
 
This is an excerpt from one of the posts by Polya. I believe, sir, that you have let emotion override reason and rational thinking. An \"opinion\" by a certain group of people does not make a unproven, flawed theory fact. Nor will your bitter rantings about the President of the United States make you any more credible to the argument. This global warming hoax is nothing but socialist/communist poisoned Kool-Aid used to trick people into giving up their freedom. You would have everyone believe that children are pollutants and the simple act of driving a car amounts to genocide. You would have everyone believe that prosperity and innovation are evil and that anyone who does not agree with this agenda should be taken out (as in killed). You sir, you are no better than the \"war-mongerers\" you rail against. And if you want to call that a \"false ad hominem abuse\" then be my guest. Your rantings contradict your claims and show that you and your kind are the ones who are greedy-grasping liars. Preying on people\'s naivete. Listen to yourself and you will find that you are worse...you are a part of a faction that spreads fear. Fear destroys and will have far more dire consequences than anything \"global warming\" can ever do. This is not science. This is religious zealotry fed by fear (i.e. Hitler...read up some time you\'ll see it correlates). Nothing you can say will change my mind or hurt me. You lost credibility when you started spouting \"false ad hominem abuse\" about my President (is he perfect, no has he made all the right decisions, no) but he\'s MY President. You sound like a bitter, angry little man. You should take a vacation, maybe get a massage or take up some kind of hobby. 
 
Love,  
Your Friendly Neighborhood Bush-ite (you bet your sweet bippy!!)
Guest
jenwlf@hotmail.comNOSPAM! ">Neo-Con
39. 29-12-2007 01:05
Bush crimes & Bush-ite abuse
Why do Bush-ites so often resort to crude, false, ad hominem abuse? 
To answer a question with a question, how do you defend the indefensible? 
 
Just check out one (1) DATA SET from an AUTHORITATIVE, A-POLITICAL SOURCE, UNICEF (see: UNICEF websiteand you will rapidly discover that about 0.5 million under-5 year old infants die each yrar in the Bush-occupied Iraqi and Afghan Territories - that's 1,300 daily, one every minute and 90% avoidably due to Bush war crimes in gross violation of the Geneva Convention (which, incidentally, he rejects - as indignantly discussed in former VP Al Gore's brilliant book "The Assault on Reason", Picador, 2007). 
 
"Stolen Presidency" Bush is the world's #1 terrorist, #1 climate criminal and #1 mass murderer of children. 
 
"Thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not kill children" - those involved in mass murder of children have unforgivably removed themselves from the community of decent humanity.  
 
Of course his crimes extend further than this daily mass murder of over 1,000 children: post-invasion excess deaths in Bush's War on Terror now total 8 million (see: 8 million Bush Asian Holocaust excess deaths. 
 
This evil war criminal and mass murderer must be prosecuted under International and Federal US Law for his immense crimes.  
 
Bush has not only trashed the World - he has also trashed America and America's reputation.
Registered
40. 01-01-2008 04:33
Today's endless heatwave and Great East
Today's heatwave where a cool change was expected at 12:00 but never came, is just a taste of what we will so be getting regularly in southern Australia. 
 
Present carbon dioxide concentrations are such that Melbourne's climate will resemble the historic climate of, say Oodnadatta within a few years. 
 
Similarly, the southward shift will be such that Margaret River will resemble Canarvon, Wyndham will resemble historic Weipa, and Kalgoorlie historic Wyndham. 
 
News of the closure of the great eastern Highway in WA make me think I should say oen thing that few dare: 
 
This is: the road should ever be reconstructed. Instead a massively upgraded rail system should take over every single freight task between Perth and the eastern states. Moreover, after that, wastage on roads should be cut from eight billion to absolutely zero and the huge air transport subsidies in excise-free fuel should be phased out immediately. 
 
Every single cent of transport investment in Australian should have been mandated thirty years ago to be rail: rail is the one means of transport ecologically suitable for Australia and we should aim to have a single-gauge system covering the whole continent to displace roads and cars completely. If Australia had been set reasonable ecoligcal obligations back in the 1990s it would have had to cut new care sales from 431,000 to zero by 2000 instead of allow the horrific Green Services Tax to cut car prices (once the dearest in the world, now the cheapest) and let sales get out of control.
Guest
jpbenney@gmail.comNOSPAM! ">Julien Peter Benney
41. 01-01-2008 05:40
Rudd Labor Oz, Bali & Terracide
Well said Julien. I know how you feel - it has been up to 40 degrees Centigrade in the last week in Melbourne, got to nearly 42 degrees centigrade (108 degrees Fahrenheit) yesterday in Melbourne and the noonday heat swallowed the expected cool change. I am dripping with sweat! 
 
Here is an interesting set of numbers that illustrate the perfidy of Australian Lib-Lab Murdochracy over climate change. 
Oz spends about A10 billion each year on fossil fuel SUBSIDIES; Oz has 50 Gigawatts (50 billion watts) of installed electicity generating capacity (85% fossil fuel-based); if this subsidy were spent on installing windfarms at the current cost of A$2 per watt we would get 5 billion watts installed each year and have 50 billion watts of winf energy installed by 2017 i.e. in 10 years' time. 
 
Yet neo-Bush-ite Religious Right Rudd (R3) will do nothing for a year - he is "waiting for GARNAUT" (the Professor Garnaut Report due in final form towards the end of 2008) - and helped Bush wreck the Bali Conference. 
 
For Rudd's FAILURE in the first 4 weeks see my Rudd Australia Report Cards #1, #2 and #3 on Cross-wire. Rudd Labor has been in power for a month and I have been writing a series of Rudd Australia Report Cards (Rudd has demanded progress Report Cards of his Ministers). I have published the first 3 (IGNORED by the Mainstream media of course) and Rudd Labor has FAILED: 1. Many but NOT all of our forces will leave Iraq but only by mid-2008 to keep Ameerica happy; 2. for all its fine Climate Change talk Rudd Labor helped Bush scuttle the Bali Conference and its stated policies will actually INCREASE climate criminal Australia\'s already HUGE, world-leading annual per capita CO2 pollution by 50% by 2050; Rudd Labor will continue to have Australia participate in the Afghan Genocide (see: Rudd Oz & Iraqi Genocide; Bali-wrecker Rudd Oz & climate genocide; Rudd Oz & Afghan Genocide). 
 
And meanwhile the Great Australian Barrier Reef is facing DEATH after we reach 450 ppm atmospheric CO2 from the present 383 ppm in about 27 years' time at the current 2.5 ppm CO2 growth annually.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
42. 02-01-2008 13:24
bushite
Can't take the heat, huh? 
Let's discuss child mass-murder shall we. 1300 children per day in Iraq & Afghanistan (500,000)...In Queensland Australia (alone...this does not include the other regions)from 1984-2005 there have been 245,376 children murdered by abortion. In Victoria the numbers are even higher. I am ashamed to say that America's numbers are atronomical in comparison but don't tell me about the deaths of children in Iraq or Afghanistan when there is blood on your country's hands too. But I guess that's exceptable because your kind think of children as pollutants anyway. You hide behind enviromental issues and use it as a cover to spread your hate message about President Bush. If he is such a monster in your eyes then submit a request to the UN and have him sanctioned. And America's reputation was trashed long before Bush stepped into the Oval Office. 
 
Your Friendly Neighborhood Bush-ite
Guest
jenwlf@hotmail.comNOSPAM! ">jennifer
43. 02-01-2008 18:40
re=jennifer
OK, I am going to assume you know what you are talking about and you have an argument here. I also would assume henceforth each time a columnist decides to write something in opposition of needless killing of civilians in war, they will include abortion, the same sex issues, etc... merely to satisfy the far right biblical obsession with those issues. 
 
But we would still be left with a question 
 
How does abortion -whether right or wrong- would justify bombing and killing of 100,000+ children?  
 
Unless like most anti-choice you feel your job is done after the birth, and could not care less what happens when the child is born. 
 
Here is a thought: 
 
Life does not ends by birth, just starts. If and when you take the responsibility for those who are alive, (this necessitates economic and social safety net PROTECTION of child and mother) the abortion certainly would be minimized if not completely abolish. 
 
Yes I am talking about those curse words . Welfare, Medicare, Social security, Education, clean environment and most of all protection from wars and abuses.
Guest
Dave
44. 02-01-2008 23:35
Right to life of the BORN
Well said, Dave. While there is general unease about abortion and general QUANTITATIVE argument about the "right ot life of the UNBORN" (e.g. at one extreme, is a person who uses a condom a "murderer"? - surely nonsense to say yes!) there should be NO qualitative or quantitative argument against the proposition of the "Right to Life of the BORN". 
 
However the Bush-ites actually IGNORE the horrendous passive mass murder of Iraqi and Afghan infants by the war criminal, mass paedocidal Bush Alliance countries (the US, UK, Australia, NATO). 
 
Is a raped woman who uses the "morning after" progesterone antagonist RU486 a murderess - is she in the same moral sphere as the US Alliance politicians who preside over the deliberate, sustained, active and passive murder of 0.5 MILLION under-5 year old Indigenous Occupied infants EACH YEAR in the US- and US surrogate Occupied Haitian, Somalian, Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories? I think not. 
 
However in relation to the FALSE, defamatory, highly obnoxious and highly abusive assertion "your kind think of children as pollutants anyway" in post #42 one must ask why do Bush-ites so often go in for false, offensive, ad hominem abuse?  
 
I guess the answer must relate to the impossibility of defending the indefensible, the annual mass murder of about HALF A MILLION under-5 year old Occupied Iraqi and Afghan infants by the war criminal Bush US Coalition. 
 
Those - such as the pro-killing Racist Religious Right Republican (R4) Bush-ites in America or the pro-killing Bush-ites and neo-Bush-ites in Australia, UK, Caanda and NATO - who ignore, deny, excuse, minimize, obfuscate, support, advocate or are otherwise complicit in the mass murder of BORN INFANTS are violating a fundamental imperative of ALL decent humanity.
Registered
45. 03-01-2008 16:25
Your Friendly Neighborhood Bush-ite
Your hate supercedes your argument thus making it moot. No one wants to listen to a raving loon. Tone down the hate rhetoric and maybe people would listen. Better yet, stop it altogether and you might make a valid point. But your statistics are grossly exaggerated. It was estimated by Iraq\'s Health Minister Ali al-Shemari that there have been 100,000 to 150,000 (that would be a total of children and adults) civilian deaths since the 2003 invasion. Those are significantly lower numbers than 500,000 per year (ample sarcasm here). Now,I understand that you think all Bush-ites come from cornpone, back woods inbred little townettes in the middle of nowhere who don\'t know how to read much less do any research into what you say but I assure you that is NOT the case where I am concerned. As far as living children are concerned I believe that every parent should take care of their children to the best of THEIR ability. I DO NOT believe that government has a right or responsibility to usurp that role. Of course I don\'t believe it\'s right to blow up children! But I also don\'t believe the US is responsible for all the woes of every nation. We should intervene when we see gross injustice (Saddam Hussein) BUT I do not believe that we are the world police. And if I may ask, what are \"indigenous occupied infants in the US\"? And I see now you have added a few countries to total your skewed statistics. Every human conceived should have the right to life regardless of the way in which they are conceived. There are millions of married couples who can\'t have children who would love the chance to adopt. People should not be dependant on government for their basic needs. Welfare has shown itself to be a crutch and an impotent tool against poverty (it only breeds more poverty). Socialized medicine DOES NOT work. Socialism in general does not work.  
And those \"born\" children are only here because someone chose not to abort them.  
 
Seriously, you should quit repeating yourself over and over again with the \"false ad hominem abuse\". It\'s rather annoying and isn\'t a valid rebuttal.