Finally, there is a release date for the much-awaited English version of Czech President’s Vaclav Klaus’ book,
‘BLUE PLANET IN GREEN SHACKLES
What is endangered: Climate of Freedom?’
President Klaus will be presenting it on May 27th, 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington D.C..
Thanks to Lubos Motl from ‘The Reference Frame’ for the tip!
As if continuing to opress its population were not enough!
As if forcing women to undergo ‘abortions’ against their will were not enough!
As if China’s continuous disregard for the environment were not enough!
As if its exploitation of Africa were not enough!
After all – all these things could not possibly outweigh our desire to ‘not dissapoint our athletes – or so we have been told by so many apologists….
Now, we have another reason for not going to the Olympic games in Beijing. And this one actually poses danger to the athletes – and all the spectators – themselves! No, not just the smog, or something equally long-term. We are talking about real, immediate, physical danger. And not just to them alone, but to everyone back home when they return, especially the kids.
What, do you say, could this be?
The National Post has an interesting article about the outbreak of the infectious hand-mouth-foot disease (HMFD) in China! According to CDC, HMFD can be caused by several different viruses, some of them mild, some potentially deadly, especially to children. The National Post article says this outbreak is caused by EV71, of which the CDC says:
“Another cause of HFMD, EV71 may also cause viral meningitis and, rarely, more serious diseases, such as encephalitis, or a poliomyelitis-like paralysis. EV71 encephalitis may be fatal. Cases of fatal encephalitis occurred during outbreaks of HFMD in Malaysia in 1997 and in Taiwan in 1998.”
This disease can be spread by such innoculous means as cutlery not washed in hot enough water (CDC). It is usualy only serious for children and people with weakened health, but strong adults (like, say, athletes) can become infected without becoming symptomatic, and spread the virus for several weeks (like, say, when they return home to their kids).
In other words, the athletes and millions of Olympic spectators could become infected, without being symptomatic. Most visitors and athletes would likely fly home – and airplanes, with their re-circulated air, are perfect incubators for infectious pathogens… ask any nurse! Once home, all these people will celbrate, hug and kiss their kids, relatives, friends….get together to show photos and talk….
This sounds like an ‘ideal’ way to spread this disease!
Oh, but China would take all precautions to contain the infection, right? Ask world’s leading experts to help them do all it takes to protect its own citizens as well as Olympic athletes and visitors? Right?
As luck would have it, Taiwan is seen as having some of the best expertise in containing this disease – they have successfully done it two times recently! Nice and close – except that… China is not willing to accept help!
Not only has it refused Taiwanese experts entry, it has also banned Taiwanese journalists. Its own official newspapers are not exactly forthcoming with information on the epidemic… Nice to see how well they are handling it…their traditional way of deny, deny, deny! No problem here! Yeah, and you expect us to trust any assurances after this, too? Some track record!
It would be foolish to allow people to attend the Olympics in the midst of a deadly epidemic (and children in China have died during this outbreak already). Or, in the least, governments which allow its citizens to travel to the Beijing Olympics MUST, as a matter of national health policy, establish quarantine areas where anyone returning from Beijing will have to be detained for several weeks, until any danger of spreading the disease has passed (both athletes and visitors).
Now, this is a thoroughly NON-POLITICAL reason not to go to this Olympics!
It would not be a political boycot. Rather, it would be a prudent and responsible policy to prevent the worldwide spread of a disease that kills children.
Will THIS be enough to make the world do the right thing?
Democracy is a wonderfu ideal. Yet, there will always be a question of how to exercise our democratic rights, while preventing a ‘tyrrany of the majority’?
To many people, the best answer is:
Protecting the rights of each and every individual, the minority of ‘one’, is the best and only way to ensure the protection of the whole society from tyrrany by the State.
Yet, not everyone agrees. The philosophy which seems to currently be gripping much of ‘the Western world’ turns its back to the individual, turns a blind eye to the violations of individual freedoms, in favour of collectivism. I have wondered how much of this is a philosophical difference, how much is simply due to the attitudes inherrent in different political systems.
Many people today think that the best way to ensure peope are not discriminated against – the best way to promote tolerance and harmony within a society – is to put limits on the freedom of speech. By instituting ‘hate speech laws’, these people argue, hate and prejudice will not be allowed to spread and will, eventually, be eliminated from our society.
I wish this would be so!
Time and time again, ‘hate speech laws’ have not only failed to reduce prejudice, I woud argue that they have allowed it to fester, until a time when it erupts in hateful and abominable acts. What is worse, they have resulted in political institutions which are invariably used to opress, all in the name of preventing opression. We have seen this happen many times in history, but we still seem unable to learn the right lessons from history!
Let us consider the example of Germany in the 1930’s. After all, it is precisely to prevent atrocities such as the Holocaust that ‘hate speech laws’ are being instituted. Yet, in Maclean’s, Mark Steyn (both he and Macleans are also being persecuted under ‘hate speech laws’) quotes Canada’s leading libertarian lawyer, Alan Borovoy, as saying:
“Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.”
To the contrary! Hitler, once elected, effectively used these laws to usurp power.
Should there be ANY limits on speech? Mr. Levant, also currently being persecuted by the thought crime police, has videotaped part of his interrogation by the Alberta HRC. He makes the most passionate, well reasoned speech on the attributes of free speech!
But, is tide turning?
For the past several years, what would appear to be illegal behaviour in both its investigations and prosecutions by the HRCs in Canada has inexplicably been tolerated. Now, this may come to an end. This week, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have announced they are opening a criminal investigatigation of some actions by the HRCs. Ezra Levant has more information on this.
Australia may also be changing its ideas with regard to limiting freedom of speech. As Robert Jago writes on Dime a Dozen, Australia’s Liberal Party is calling for a change to its ‘hate speech laws’, because they have been shown to promote, not curb, divisions in their society!
But, perhaps the best news comes from Erope! Czech Republic is a nation of reason (fully 59% of Czechs describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or non-believers) and their scepticism extends to other areas, as well. Lubos Motl, one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists, writes that Vaclav Kaus, the President of Czech Republic, has vetoed an ‘anti-discrimination’ bill. His justification?
“I consider the bill to be a useless, counterproductive, and low-quality bill while its consequences seem to be problematic….”
Good on you, Czechs!
You can read the full, well reasoned and excellent speech here. Mr. Motl writes that, ironically, “Because the bill has been “ordered” by the European bureaucrats and the country may face sanctions (let’s say it: the Czechs may be discriminated against) if the anti-discrimination bill is not approved”
Yes, the overwhelming bureacracies still want to control every aspect of society, including what we say and think. But, little stories like this make me hopeful. Perhaps these are the beginnings of a real change in attitudes: one that will place more value on each and every individual, and treat all of us with the respect and equality in the eyes of the law that we deserve!
Has the dyke of opression finally sprung its first little leaks of reason?
P.S. President Klaus’ book, ‘Blue Planet In Green Chains – What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom’ is due for release in English this month.
Oppression comes in many forms, all of them disgusting and condemnable. All of them have something in common: the willingness to sacrifice the rights and well being of an individual, a specific human being, for some higher principle. The principle itself is less imoportant – and it varies from ‘the good of the society’, or ‘religious piety’, or, paradoxically, ‘family honour’.
The opressors smugly wrap themselves in the ‘cloak of righteousness’. They truly and honestly believe their ends justify the means…which they NEVER do.
I planned to write about something else today, when I came across this article on ‘A Chocoholic’s Piece of Mind’ blog: Rand Abdel-Qader, a 17-year-old student, was murdered by her father an brother for being seen speaking to a Brit soldier…. She worked as an aid worker, and spoke English…translated and became infatuated. No affair, no clandestine meeting, just a schoolgirl crush…and translating for him, as part of the volunteer work she did with refugee families.
I wonder what another Rand, Ayn Rand, would have to say about this…her father’s reaction (quoting the article linked above) was:
‘Death was the least she deserved,’ said Abdel-Qader. ‘I don’t regret it. I had the support of all my friends who are fathers, like me, and know what she did was unacceptable to any Muslim that honours his religion,’
…
‘I have only two boys from now on. That girl was a mistake in my life. I know God is blessing me for what I did,’ he said, his voice swelling with pride. ‘My sons are by my side, and they were men enough to help me finish the life of someone who just brought shame to ours.’
…
He said his daughter’s ‘bad genes were passed on from her mother’. Rand’s mother, 41, remains in hiding after divorcing her husband in the immediate aftermath of the killing, living in fear of retribution from his family. She also still bears the scars of the severe beating he inflicted on her, breaking her arm in the process, when she told him she was going.
…
Sources have indicated that Abdel-Qader, who works in the health department, has been asked to leave because of the bad publicity, yet he will continue to draw a salary.
And it has been alleged by one senior unnamed official in the Basra governorate that he has received financial support by a local politician to enable him to ‘disappear’ to Jordan for a few weeks, ‘until the story has been forgotten’ – the usual practice in the 30-plus cases of ‘honour’ killings that have been registered since January alone.
…
Abdel-Qader, 46, a government employee, was initially arrested but released after two hours. Astonishingly, he said, police congratulated him on what he had done. ‘They are men and know what honour is,’ he said.
This is not honour, and we must stop thinking that just because people come from different parts of the world, they should not be expected to treat each other – including their daughters and wives – with respect. Thinking these attitudes are too deeply entrenched is a very insidious and destructive form or racism, and we must all work together to show it is unacceptable!
Please, indulge me with a story about an Iranian man and HIS attitude towards his teenage daughter:
When I came to Canada as a teenager, I befriended an Iranian girl who arrived at about the same time. They were devout Muslims. At her apartment, my friend showed me the charcoal-gray hijab she was forced to wear in Iran – the very first one I ever saw – and I tried it on. Her father was angry at the sight of the hijab. What he said has made a deep impression on me, and is with me still.
He told me that the hijab was not part of Islam. Not even a little bit. He explained that when the Koran was written, the rights it granted women were much more than women had in that society before, and that it meant that the Prophet wanted to eventually bring full equality between men and women. It just had to happen one step at a time.
The hijab, he went on, was a symbol of opression: not just of women, but of all true Muslims by those who wish to have power over them. He was very angry that they would do this, when the religion itself teaches the equality of all humans. He was also angry that many young Mulsimas were brainwashed to think the hijab was a symbol of a proudly pious Muslima – he said teaching young women that was a crime against Islam, because it was a part of a doctorine that reduced them from humans to possessions.
He explained that in Iran, he had done well, a professional with his own business…but he left because he would not allow his daughter to be brought up in a society which would only treat her as cattle, or a piece of meat! He wanted her to grow up a good Muslima who has confidence in herself as a person, and who is not a slave to anyone…in other words, as a real human being!
Now THERE is a FATHER WITH HONOUR!!!
If only more men – Muslim or otherwise – would have enough honour to value their daughters as much as my friend’s father valued her!
The old saying says:
Those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it.
Perhaps we should re-phrase it to:
Those who do not learn the right lesson from history are destined to repeat it.
After all, learning the wrong lesson could be worse than learning no lesson at all!
This all goes back to my rant on how often people do not recognize the difference between ‘symptom’ on the one hand, and a ’cause’ on the other. Are they really so difficult to tell apart?
Many years ago, I went through a period when I was reading a lot of eyewitness books about WWII and the political atmosphere in Europe following the war. I came across something intersting that Barbara Amiel had written: she spent her childhood in ‘wartime London’. Following the war, there was a determination among her relatives that nothing like this must ever be allowed to happen again. And because Hitler was perceived as being ‘right wing’, Ms. Amiel asserts, ‘everyone’ became suspicious of – and opposed to – everything that was deemed to be ‘right wing’.
In other words, the lesson this group of people learned was:
This is almost as sophisticated reasoning as that used for forcing women to wear a hijab, so they would not tempt men to rape them – as uncovered meat tempts cats to eat it. In other words, that is not the correct lesson. Yet, many very intelligent people still fall into this trap in one form or another.
Yet, lots of people do learn the right lesson. This one may be exemplified by the ‘First they came for…’ poem, attributed to Martin Niemoller:
“First they came for the Communists, but I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
Yet, even now, people are misunderstanding the poem! So, please, in my never-humble way, let me pay homage to the right lesson here and write today’s version, as it could be.
“First they silenced the crackpot and nutcases, but I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a crackpot or a nutcase.
Then they silenced the bloggers, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a blogger.
Then they silenced the journalists, newspapers, magazines and books, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a journalist and didn’t write newspapers, magazines or books.
Then they silenced the Christians, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t religious.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left who was allowed to speak.”
If we fail to learn this lesson, this will be in store for us! This is NOT HISTORY! This is now, here, in OUR WORLD!
This is what happens when people think a political party, or a particular political bend is the problem and fail to recognize that political oppression and governments who do not follow due process of law to achieve their ends that is the problem!!! And if you are an adult, and not afraid to see a graphic example of the result of a state not bound by its laws is, here are some pictures that were too gruesome to print in a newspaper.
But I warn you – do not look if you are sqeemish. It took me a while to realize what part of the human body I was really looking at…
As it is taking so many of us to realize what type of oppression it is that we are facing!
Humans form communities – that is one of our defining (and best) characteristics. In order to coexist peacefully, we must agree on a set of rules to govern our interactions. Yet, different communities don’t always go about it the same way.
Some adopt ‘common law’, which takes the approach that all behaviours are permitted, except for those deemed to be harmful, which are then specificly forbidden under the law. This suggests an underlying philosophy that each person is a free, independent individual. People ought to be free to act according to their will, and only those behaviours that infringe upon the rights of other individuals within the community to enjoy thier freedoms are forbidden. The goal of laws is to ensure all individual members of the society are able to exercise their freedoms as much as possible.
Communities which develop one of the forms of ‘Civil law’ have a different point of view. They specifically list the behaviours which are acceptable to the society and permits them, all others are forbidden. This suggests a philosophy that it is ‘the society’ which is the ‘basic unit of worth’, not the ‘individual’. As such, it is the goal for the laws to protect the society.
This is a really big philosophical difference.
It seems to me that common law promotes individualism, while civil law seems more focused on collectivism.
Of course, this is a major simplification. Also, there are several forms of civil law. This is not intended to be an exhaustive description… Rather, it is meant to explore the differences in the philosophical undercurrents between societies which choose to govern themselves under civil or common law. It is not meant to look at the specifics as they are, but at the patterns of thought that led to the differing attitudes of how we ‘ought to’ govern ourselves.
Common law (in its idealized state) sees the individual as the empowered one, the one with inherrent rights who chooses to lend some freedoms to the state in order to create a society. The law is loath to interfere with these rights and freedoms of each one of its citizens and will only curb them with great reluctance. It could be summed up by the sentiment:
‘Upholding the rights of the one ensures the rights of the many.’
Civil law sees the society as the one with all the power. ‘These are (or ‘ought to be’) the customs of our society, thus codified here into law. Do not stray outside of these behaviours, or you will have to answer to the state.’ And while many countries that practice civil law have accepted that an accused individual has the right to a fair trial, including a presumption of innocence, not all of them do. It could be summed up by the sentiment:
‘Every one must adhere to these rules, because they are in the best interest of the society.’
Many modern countries do incorporate some aspects of both philosophies. Rather than opposite sides of a coin, I see these as different ends of a continuous philosophical spectrum. Most countries fall somewhere within this spectrum, and may move along it in one direction or another with time.
Yet, regardless where along this spectrum a particular state’s legal system lies at any specific time, these underlying philosophies will influence its attitude towards its citizens.
For those of you not following the Canadian struggle for free speech, this letter, which I emailed my Member of Parliament today, may seem a little confusing. Here is a REALLY quick recap:
In order to provide disadvanteged groups easy and affordable access to legal protection agains illegal discrimination, Human Rights Commissions (HRCs) were established several decades ago: one federal (Canadian, or CHRC) and one for each province. These HRCs have, lately, been interpreting their mandate in unforseen ways, asserting that any speech which ‘potentially could’ have negative impact on individuals or groups because of their race, creed, disablitiy, and other reasons, must be censored and that this censorship overrules any rights of freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of thought.
Many individuals, and some media organizations, have been going through several years long legal battles in their defense of their inalienable rights. Even the very people who originally created the HRCs have been apalled at the misuse of their powers in recent years… What is even worse, recently released tribunal transcripts contain admissions by some HRC employees which suggest that in their zeal to pursue (and entrap) people whom they are investigating, criminal laws are being violated. That is a serious matter, because no government agency should be allowed to break laws in order to enforce laws…
The Minister of Justice recently said what I understand to mean that as far as the Canadian Government is concerned, all is fine…hence, my letter.
Dear Mr. [MP],
Thank you for your kind reply, in which you say you will direct my concern over the HRCs and their actions directly to the Minister of Justice. It arrived at about the same time as the Minister of Justice made his position on this situation known….
How unfortunate that the official Government position is based on a brief by Mr. Tsesis, who is not regarded highly among the experts in this area and whose disregard for supportable facts required to assess causality can clearly be seen in the document he produced.
For example, Mr. Tsesis claims: “[Hitler fomented] a mass delusion that Jews were responsible for bad times, and as a result, a Holocaust could be perpetrated against them without general opposition.” This displays blatant ignorance of (or disregard for) the fact that during the 1930’s, Germany did indeed have ‘hate speech’ laws, which (ironically?) were almost identical to those we have in Canada today! Jewish leaders in Germany in the 1930’s expressed satisfaction with the protections from persecution which they and their community received under these ‘hate speech’ laws.
Since ‘hate speech’ laws were present in Germany of the 1930, proposing (as Mr. Tsesis does) that our current ‘hate speech’ laws are the one tool necessary to prevent another Holocaust-like event is an error of judgment at best, intentionally misleading at worst. Either way, it clearly demonstrates the unsoundness of the conclusions in this document. Basing our national Justice policy on it would be ill advised.
How embarrassing for our Government, to reveal that this is indeed its intention! How embarrassing for our Minister of Justice!
Yet, my original comment was not intended to request a simple review of the policies of the Human Rights Commissions by the Government. It is essential that the Government maintain its ‘arm’s length’ distance from judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. That should not change.
The HRCs answer directly to the Parliament of Canada. It is essential that the Parliament of Canada ensures that bodies such as the HRCs do indeed perform the tasks for which they had been created, and that they conduct themselves in accordance with the laws of Canada, the very laws they were created to uphold!
There is a widespread perception among the citizens of Canada that employees of these commissions may have broken criminal laws of Canada while performing investigations on behalf of the HRCs. This perception is largely based on the information in legal documents, transcripts of hearings from the HRCs themselves. These statements were given under oath, and in them an employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission describes actions he took while acting on behalf of the HRC which appear to be a clear and direct breech of the criminal laws of Canada, as well as a blatant breech of the very ‘hate speech’ laws the CHRC was created to uphold.
It is not, and must never become, tolerable for an Agent of the State to break the laws of the State while acting on behalf of the State. In order to assure the integrity of our governance structures, it is essential that a full criminal investigation be launched immediately, to determine whether laws were indeed broken, or not.
If it is found that criminal laws were broken, a further in-depth investigation will be required to determine whether some rogue employees broke criminal laws on their own, or if the policies of this public institutions are the root causes of criminal behaviour by its employees – in which case, a full evaluation of all the procedures and methodologies of the HRCs would need to be done. If a criminal investigation determines that laws were indeed broken, laying criminal charges will be required against every employee who broke our laws as well as against all supervisory personnel (currently or in the past employed by the HRC’s), who, through ignorance or complicity, allowed this illegal behaviour within their department to take place.
If the perception that criminal laws are being broken at the HRCs is erroneous, it is important that we, the citizens of Canada, see them exonerated, so that we may again place our trust in our government agencies and institutions.
This determination cannot be made without a full criminal investigation of the HRCs, their procedures, methodologies and practices, as well as of the conduct all of its employees, past and present. Therefore, I ask that you, Mr. Poilievre, as my Member of Parliament to which the HRCs report directly, channel your efforts and energies to launching a full and thorough investigation into this whole mess.
Thank you.
If you wish to read more on this saga, please see the excellent sites Blazing Catfur, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Small Dead Animals, and many, many more…
It is unusual for me to write about the US presidential race, because, frankly, it is a bit overdone. We are inundated with the minutest details and the wildest speculations over and over, whether we care or not.
Yet, there is one very important speculation that I have never heard voiced. Perhaps it is my own fault for shutting out so much of the detail, and it has been covered and dealt with. If that is the case, then I beg your forgiveness. But, if it has not been addressed, then I would humbly request that people give this some sober, realistic consideration.
Different people – and nation states – react very differently to identical ‘facts’. Mundane example: I see a rabbit, I will think ‘pet’. Another person looks at a rabbit, they may see ‘dinner’. It would be unreasonable to expect the same reaction from both of us to being served a rabbit-burger. The same is true of many, many things, not all of them mundane or witout deep impact.
Many supporters of Mr. Obama’s bid for the Democratic nomination, and ultimately the Presidency of the USA, say that he would be well received in the world, and enjoy much more credibililty than either Ms. Clinton or Mr. McCain. While his lack of experience and specific policies he suggested may have come under attack, his supporters maintain that his multicultural outlook would be great assets giving him (an by extension, the USA) great credibility, especially in Africa.
But are we not overlooking one extremely important point? Mr. Obama is an apostate to Islam – and much of the Muslim world, including in Africa, consider this to be very bad thing indeed.
This has less to do with the views of Mr. Obama himself. It does not concern anything a preacher he’d listened to may or may not believe. All it has to do with is the fact that as a child and young man, Mr. Obama was a Muslim, and now he is not. He does not deny that – nor has he ever tried to. By definition, this makes him an Apostate.
The very fact that he has converted from Islam to another faith may make it impossible for many fundamentally Islamic nation-states to accept him. After all, rightly or wrongly, many of them do interpret The Qur’an, specifically Sura (chapter) 4, verses 89-92: “If they turn away [convert away from Islam], then sieze them and kill them wherever you find them;…”.
Also, many Muslims use several books in addition to the Qur’an. These are not given the central importance that Qur’an is, but because they contain the collected sayings of the Prophet Muhammad and strories of his life, these are often used as a guide according to which the Qur’an is supposed to be interpreted. One of these is often quoted as to the proper interpretation of the above verse: ‘Bukhari’ 4.52.260 – “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’ ”
In 2006, a man was sentenced to death in Afghanistan for having converted from Islam to Christianity. This was well after the Taliban were out of power, but even the moderates in Afghanistan did not understand why people in ‘The West’ were upset by this. Most of us are familiar with the case of Lina Joy, and others like her.
In fact, four of the major Sunni as well as the major Shia schools of Islam all agree that a sane, adult male who converts away from Islam deserves the death penalty.
I offer this as an entirely pragmatic consideration: will some people be able to see Mr. Obama, the man, or will they only see an Apostate?
How will they react if the USA elects an ‘Apostate President’?
The whole ‘Global Warming’ – under whatever name one chooses – issue is a mess. Unmitigated, tangled up and muddled mess.
So, how can a person make sense of it all?
Frankly, I don’t know. What I do know, however, is that we are actively being presented with only a very small part of the story through the main stream media (MSM). And I also know that reasonable points raised by bonafide scientists from the field of climate change are being shouted down or smeared before their ideas are even listened to.
That is not how scientific debate occurs. It is anathema to science itself! In true scientific community, people are willing to listen to dissenting points of view – provided these are scientific and testable hypothesies (using the term in the narrow, scientific sense). Why? The reason for this is very simple: sometimes, even what appear to be ‘crackpot’ ideas may indeed turn out to be better models of reality than the original theories.
Scientists are only human. Yes, as much as this is contrary to some opinions, they are only human. Many times in the past, the ‘current scientific consensus’ was just silly in rejecting even the consideration of ‘things’ that we now regard as integral tools of science:
“… my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope.”
– Galileo Galilei
Today, most scientists are careful to not have the ‘obstinacy of a glutted adder’, and tend to seriously examine ideas which run contrary to mainstream opinions. How far are they prepared to go? Well, consider the case of Dr. Peter Duesberg: he came out with not just one, but two controversial theories.
In the first one, he proposed that while there is a co-occurrence of the HIV virus and AIDS, he thought the causality had not been established with sufficient scientific rigour. (I am not particularly versed in his theory – if I am misrepresenting it, I apologize. The point is not his theory as such, but the scientific community’s reaction to it.)
The reaction?
Scientists actually went and checked his data, looked over his studies, and found where he had made mistakes. Even so, his views are often referred to in scientific publications on HIV/AIDS, in order to ensure that the scientific basis for refuting them is easily available.
Long after this, he proposed another very controversial scientific hypothesis: this time on the nature of cancer. Even though he was one of the researchers to have identified one of the ‘cancer genes’, he now proposed that cancer may be more due to chromosomal abnormalities than to problems within individual genes. Again, the details of his hypothesis are less important than the reaction it received.
Even though his first hypothesis has been flatly rejected, scientists listened when he proposed this one. In May 2007, Scientific American published his controversial theory in an article called ‘Chromosomal Chaos and Cancer’. Earlier in the same issue, the editor’s page was titled ‘When Pariahs Have Good Ideas’, where the editors explain that even though Dr. Duesberg’s ideas on HIV/AIDS have been discredited, he might have a good point here and that scientific ideas ought to be judged on thier merit.
So, what was my point in bringing up Dr. Duesberg?
To show how scientists tend to evaluate ideas, even from scientists who have been proven wrong in the past: they tests them, then – right or wrong – they reference them. One thing they certainly do not do is try to shut each other up. That would be unscientific!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
– Galileo Galilei
Sadly, this is not happening in the field of Climate….
Scientists who do not subscribe to the ‘bad humans making Earth too hot and this will be a disaster’ point of view have systematically been insulted, bullied, their reputations smeared and jobs threatened, and more than one has received threats of bodily harm. As Dickens might say: “What the Sheakespeare is going on here?!?!?!?’
Oh, but I have made some general accusations here: I had better support them!
Here is one article from the Wall Street Journal by Richard Lindzen, a scientist who had been threatened, and who has seen others under similar pressure. In this April 2006 article, he also charges scientific publications ‘Science’ and ‘Nature’ with bias and underhanded tactics. He also names several other scientists who have faced threats.
If the Wall Street Journal is not your cup of tea, here is an article from ‘Telegraph’ from the UK about the death threats received by scientists who publicly question the ‘global warming catastrophy’ dogma. But this is only a small sample of a large body of scientists who are speaking up.
Sadly, most people don’t realy get to hear what these scientists have to say. Their views are not often published. Why? I don’t know. However, here is an article from ‘The Australian’ about how journalists at ‘The Age’ (an Australian publication) had been ordered to not write anything negative about the ‘Earth Hour’ earlier this month:
“Reporters were pressured not to write negative stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers.”
All right, ‘Earth Hour’ is just fluff – what about real climate stories?
It seems that we may not be getting the true story there, either. Earlier this month, BBC (yes, THE BBC) had done a big ‘no-no’: they totally changed the story, without noting it!!!
When a story is edited or changed, this is supposed to be noted. However, BBC ran a story on the topic of climate, was bullied by a ‘climate activist’, and changed the whole meaning of the story WITHOUT NOTING THE CHANGE!!! That is not very nice at all.
Thankfully, wee have access to the full email exchange of the activist’s bullying and the BBC reporter giving in. It is a little long, but here is a telling phrase the activist used:
“I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.
Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.”
EMERGING TRUTH???
What about ‘documented truth’?
And ‘PSYCHOLOGICALLY MANIPULATED’?
I cannot help but feel that we, the ‘unwashed masses’, are being manipulated here… It seems certain that we are not getting an accurate picture of what scientists are truly finding out about these processes which might significantly impact us all.
While I have been taking a look at Aspergers, and describing some of my experiences and coping methods that worked for me, I have neglected a number of other very important topics.
For example, I have promised to post on the topic of the climate. And I promised that I would provide some solid information about why I hold the views I do. Thus, I was preparing something on this.
Alas, it is difficult to assess the information one is provided if one is not familiar with the underlying science behind the words. More and more of what I have been reading from non-scientific (that is, MSM (main stream media) and many blogs, debating sites etc. – you know, all them places that have replaced the ‘watercooler chat’) has convinced me that before I can hope to provide useful information, it will be necessary to log in some explanations first.
As if to convince me that I ought to do this, in a coment on this post on a dime a dozen blog , somebody asked the following question:
“say, doesn’t co2 kill plants??????”
I thought this question needed to be addressed, the sooner the better. Here is my (somewhat expanded) answer:
No. CO2 does NOT kill plants. Nor is it pollution! It is plant food, and what plants use to make food for us.
There are 2 basic ‘gas exchange’ processes that occur in plants: breathing (respiration) and photosynthesis.
Why breathe? What is the purpose? ENERGY!!!
To carry out the process of living, all cells need energy. That is why we – and plants – need to breathe 24 hours a day. So how do we get energy by breathing in oxygen?
An oxygen molecule is made up of two oxygen atoms (hence O2 – the 2 means the molecule is made up of 2 oxygen atoms). These two atoms are held together by a ‘bond’ – breaking this bond releases energy. But an oxygen atom by itself has a strong ‘need’ to bond to something (we rate it a level 2 need). If left in this state, it would harm the surrounding cells (it is called a ‘free radical’).
Organisms ‘solve’ the problem by taking a carbon atom (C) which has an even higher ‘need’ to bond (level 4). Two oxygen atoms (with a ‘2’ each) are bonded to the one carbon atom (to add up to the carbon’s ‘4’). (Yes, this is a major simplification – but the underlying principles are accurately described). The resulting molecule is CO2 – or one carbon and two oxygen atoms. All of its ‘needs’ for ‘bonds’ are met, so it is not harmful to the surrounding tissues.
Yes, it does require energy to bind the oxygen atoms to the carbon one. However, because carbon has such a high ‘need’ for bonds, it takes less enegry to bind the oxygen atoms to it than was released by breaking the bonds between the two oxygen atoms. In other words, when one breaks the molecular bonds between the two oxygen atoms in O2, then take a part of that energy and uses it to bind the two oxygen atoms to a carbon atom, one has some energy left over. I stress again, this is a major simplification – there are many steps and other ‘bits’ (like glucose, which is where the carbon molecules for the reaction come from) are essential!!! However, the underlying principle is correct. If you would like to read more about this, here and here and here are good starting spots.
This energy difference is what cells use to carry out ‘living’. We call this process aerobic respiration, both in plants and animals. And though other molecules may be used in its place, oxygen is by far the most efficient one. (Respiration in the absence of oxygen is called anaerobic respiration.)
During respiration, living cells get energy by breaking ‘bond’ betwen two oxygen atoms in an oxygen molecule (O2), and then use carbon atoms from glucose (simple sugar, made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms) molecules to stop the resulting oxygen atoms (free radicals) from harming the cell itself. So, where does the glucose come from?
Glucose is produced by photosynthesis.
Plants have special organelles called chloroplasts. These are specialized organelles (sub-section of a cell with a specialized function) in the plant cells which contain the green pigment chlorophyl. Their function is to take IN carbon dioxide (CO2) form the air, and combine it with hydrous oxyde (H2O – water).
The C (carbon) from the CO2 is combined with the OH group from H2O. OK, I am simplifying again: you need several molecules of CO2 and H2O to make it work, because the result of combining the carbons and oxygens and hydrogens together is the simple sugar, glucose: and it has 6 carbon atoms in it.
It is, in fact, pretty much the reverse of the chemical reaction during respiration. But the reason for respiration is to release energy. So, this process of photosynthesis needs energy from the outside to happen – and this is the reason why it occurs in the chloroplasts, which contain the green pigment chlorophyll, which is very good at absorbing light energy from the sun. It then uses this energy to drive the chemical reaction of binding carbon atoms (from CO2 in the air) to water molecules to produce the simple carbohydrate, glucose.
This process is called photosynthesis because it uses the enegy from light (photo) to build (synthesise) glucose, a simple sugar. Glucos molecules can, in turn, be joined up into long chains so they can be stored efficiently. The end product, the carbohydrate chain, is called starch.
Plants can then use the stored up starch in order to breathe. And animals, unable to make starch themselves, eat plants in order to get it. Thus, energy from sun gets stored by plants (using carbon dioxide and water) as carbohydrates. The byproduct of this process in the oxygen molecule. Plants and animals use these carbohydrates and oxygen from the air to use this stored solar energy to ‘drive’ their cells. The byproduct of this is carbon dioxide. This is the basic energy cycle of our current lifeforms.
The more complex the plant, the more CO2 it requires to grow and thrive. For example, the ‘Great Plains’ in the US used to be mostly covered by trees – until the carbon dioxide levels became too low to support them. Then, they reverted to grassplains, because grass is a less complex plant and requires (and uses)less CO2 in the air.
If you love trees, as I do, you cannot but object to anything that will reduce the CO2 levels available for them to grow. I am a self-admitted tree hugger – and a scientist. I thought the ‘global warming’ thing sounded good when it was first proposed, so I have ‘looked into’ it (extensively – though this is NOT my field of expertise!!! I do not wish to mislead!). The evidence has convinced me that this is not dangerous. To the contrary. Incerases in CO2 levels are higly advantageous to lifeforms on Earth because historically, they raise food availability and are accompanied by greater species differentiation and increase in overall lifeforms supported. And despite some claims, hard datea shows that we are nowhere near historically high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So, why the hype?
I don’t know. In situations where things get as murky as this is, I like to use a very simple ‘rule of thumb’: “cui bono?”
Or, in other words, ‘Follow the money, honey!’
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 