Global Warming / Climate Change scam

[Brocke]

Car industry claims luxury tax to catch half of all sales

By Lenore Taylor

July 22, 2008 12:01am
Article from: The Australian

BY 2030 half the new cars sold in Australia will be hit by the 33 per cent luxury car tax if trends continue, the industry will tell a Senate inquiry today as it urges a lifting of the tax's $57,000 threshold.

The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries will also ask the Senate to overrule government attempts to retrospectively apply its budget decision to increase the tax from 25 to 33 per cent from July 1, since the tax hike is still not yet law, The Australian reports.

The luxury car tax is one of four budget measures referred to Senate committees by the Coalition before it lost its Senate majority at the end of June, a move Treasurer Wayne Swan slammed at the time as "completely irresponsible".

But the car industry is intent on using the committee process to win changes to the law from the new Senate when it sits in August - with the Government now needing support from two independents and the Greens to pass legislation that is opposed by the Coalition.

FCAI chief executive Andrew McKellar will tell the Senate committee in Adelaide today that from the time it was introduced in the late 1970s, an ever-rising percentage of Australian-sold vehicles had been caught by the tax - from 2.5 per cent in 1979 to 11 per cent last year.

The top selling "luxury" car as defined by the tax is not a Porsche or a Maserati, but a Toyota Landcruiser Wagon, and within five years it is likely that cars such as Nissan Patrol wagons and Mitsubishi Pajero five-doors will also be caught by the tax.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24058021-5007133,00.html

[Brocke]

Aussies in dark over carbon scheme

July 21, 2008 05:58pm
Article from: AAP

AUSTRALIANS don't know what to make of Ross Garnaut's plan on climate change, a survey says.

An Essential Research poll released today showed respondents were evenly split between thinking his draft report released earlier this month got the balance right, went too far, or did not go far enough.

The most common response was "don't know'', which attracted 32 per cent of respondents.

However, people had a clearer answer on whether some industries should be exempted from emissions trading - no.

Fifty-four per cent of those surveyed said the system should apply to all industries.

Twenty-five per cent thought industries with a special reliance on carbon should be given more time to take up the scheme.

Just 5 per cent thought certain industries should be exempt.

The Federal Government in its green paper released last week has proposed exempting agriculture from emissions trading for at least the first five years, while some exporters will be given most of their permits for free.

The poll of just over 1000 people was taken online last week.

It also canvassed the public's thoughts on federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson, who did not fare well.

Few thought he was visionary (20 per cent), good in a crisis (23 per cent) or a capable leader (32 per cent).

Only 23 per cent thought Dr Nelson more honest than most politicians and 31 per cent believed he was down to earth.

Of the 15 personality traits surveyed, Dr Nelson beat Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's ratings in a survey last month on just one: he was perceived to be less demanding.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24054258-5007133,00.html

[Brocke]

Climate ads wasteful propaganda: Joyce

12:00 AEST Tue Jul 22 2008
7 hours 25 minutes ago

Barnaby Joyce has accused the government of hypocrisy after launching an emissions trading campaign.Barnaby Joyce has accused the government of hypocrisy after launching an emissions trading campaign.

Joyce says the emissions trading ad is propaganda.
By Cathy Alexander

A taxpayer-funded advertising campaign on climate change is a wasteful "propaganda piece", says Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce.

The Rudd government has launched a multi-million dollar campaign on television, radio and print to sell its plan for emissions trading.

Senator Joyce accused the government of hypocrisy, because it had strongly criticised the previous Howard government's Work Choices ad campaign.

"I've seen the ads and the ads are basically a little piece of Labor propaganda," he told AAP.

"There's a sense of (the government) being quite hypocritical in this after the tirade ... they had about the coalition's ads trying to promote Work Choices."

Opinion polls show most people do not understand emissions trading.

The government says the advertisements are part of a public information campaign.

To date, the ads illustrate the dangers of climate change, using images of chimneys and parched earth, but do not appear to explain emissions trading.

Senator Joyce said the ads contained no hard information about how emissions trading worked, and what it would cost households.

"When I've finished the ad I don't know exactly what my power bill's going to go up by," he said.

"If they believe in their policy they should first of all clearly describe it ... but clearly describing it does not require me to see it on prime time television.

"It's a propaganda piece."

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has declined to say how much the ad campaign will cost, although media reports estimate the government will spend $9 million on it this year.

Commonwealth Auditor-General Ian McPhee approved the ad campaign on Friday, deciding it complied with new rules cracking down on government advertising which promotes political interests.

According to his review, the ads will stretch into October, with a fresh round of TV advertising planned for September.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=601471&rss=yes

[Cruise4]

Money well spent 

[mr anderson]

I saw one tonight.

T-o-t-a-l fear mongering propaganda.

I'm searching for one now..

Here's a satirical one from Rove; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd1BvG1SMD0

[mr anderson]

Even if there not even addressing the problem...any dissent is fkn welcome!

[mr anderson]

Recent reply from the Climate Change Coalition:

Matt,

I have checked who and what Timothy Ball is and am underwhelmed. The attached is believable. Note that it includes confidence limits in most numbers. Your last offering also underwhelms me. I am sorry but I have to put you in the class of a conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately I too fall into that category when considering why we are so far behind where we should be on peak oil, climate change, fish stocks, water and sustainability generally. There are forces at work that prevent action.

In 1994 I was on ABC radio talking about what we needed to do on water. In 2007 we had a “crisis”. All of these things are predictable. The science is there if we choose to read the writing that is on the wall.

Your fears on cross species, biological weapons etc are all logical and well grounded. Bear in mind we have had the ability to nuke the world for decades and have not used it. GMO? Depends on what you are talking about. Our wheat industry would not have been as robust without the modifications by William Farrer. In those days we had to splice and graft whole plants, we can just do it faster now.

As for saying peak oil is by design – well that is a straight contradiction of facts. I have sent you two graphs. ASPO have been studying this for years. Fossil fuels are finite. There is a thing called energy balance – how much energy do you have to put in to get energy out. We are entering a new paradigm where we must take that into account. The age of cheap energy is coming to an end, not by design but by simple equations such as those espoused by Einstein. The laws of thermodynamics are as entrenched as those of gravity. We have yet to learn how to defy gravity or the fundamental laws of the universe. Maybe we will learn one day but don’t hold your breath.
 

Steve.
kayak4earth@bigpond.com (Be polite, mature when contacting him)

[mr anderson]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24063860-421,00.html

    *  Alliance formed over Rudd's carbon trading scheme
    * 'It's about ensuring we don't harm Australian industry'
    * Alliance wants to protect investment and jobs

SOME of the nation's richest companies are forging an alliance with Australia's biggest blue-collar union to prevent the Rudd Government's carbon trading scheme shutting key industries.

In a rare display of workforce unity, the likes of Qantas, Rio Tinto, Shell, Alcoa and BlueScope Steel are teaming with the Australian Workers Union in an effort to halt an exodus of investment and jobs.

The business/union alliance highlights the Government's challenge as it tries to frame an emissions trading scheme that doesn't ruin the economy.

AWU national secretary Paul Howes will host the roundtable with business leaders at the traditional home of militant unionism in Sydney's Sussex St.

However, the union leader - who some government ministers believe is intent on hijacking the emissions trading debate - claims the campaign is not anti-Labor.

"It is not about fighting the Government; it is about working with the Government co-operatively to ensure we don't unnecessarily harm Australian industry," Mr Howes said.

The Business Council of Australia and other key employer groups will also be at today's meeting, working to try to ensure emissions-intensive industries - such as aluminium, steel, oil and gas - have a viable future.

The Sydney talkfest comes a week after Climate Change Minister Penny Wong released a discussion paper on emissions trading - but failed to outline what the expected costs of carbon trading will be.

Mr Howes and many of the chief executives attending the Sydney roundtable are concerned the Government will sell out heavy polluting industries, destroying some regional centres.

Woodside Petroleum has warned that billions of dollars in future investment will be at risk if Canberra imposes a tough pollution-cutting ETS - ahead of other countries such as China and India.

Despite this doom and gloom scenario, the AWU boss claims early analysis of Ms Wong's discussion paper had identified some positive outcomes.

"I haven't had any companies jumping up and down, saying, 'It's the end of the world, we are going to shut down tomorrow'," Mr Howes told The Daily Telegraph.

"There are a lot of people who are happy with it. I think the Government has struck the right balance - but the devil is in the detail."

[Brocke]

I think by next year you can correct him on the "not using the nuclear option" statement...unfortunately.

I can never understand the strange juxtaposed dual thinking of the "mainstream" sheeple. On one hand they believe that the world is chaotic and out of control with very little organization. On the other hand they claim that science and technology will move ahead with care and responsibility and the interest off all humans in mind.

 

[mr anderson]

I think by next year you can correct him on the "not using the nuclear option" statement...unfortunately.

I can never understand the strange juxtaposed dual thinking of the "mainstream" sheeple. On one hand they believe that the world is chaotic and out of control with very little organization. On the other hand they claim that science and technology will move ahead with care and responsibility and the interest off all humans in mind.

 

Perhaps you can take the baton and contact this guy... 

If you want I can email the full exchange over the weeks.

[mr anderson]

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/cut-migration-to-cut-gases-20080722-3jd0.html

Adam Morton and Michelle Grattan
July 23, 2008

A PROMINENT social scientist has called on the Federal Government to slash its migration intake as the best path to meeting its goal of cutting its greenhouse emissions in half by mid-century.

Monash University social scientist Bob Birrell says Australia has little hope of meeting its emissions target - a 60% cut by 2050 - unless it halts predicted population growth of about 10 million over the next four decades.

Writing in the journal People and Place, Dr Birrell and Ernest Healy argue Australia's inflated per capita emissions - the highest in the developed world - mean global emissions grow when it accepts migrants from lower-emitting countries. Australia emits about 26 tonnes of carbon dioxide a head. Countries that send large numbers of migrants to Australia have much lower per-head emissions: 11 in Britain, four in China, two in India.

"I don't think there is any question that moving people from Asia to Australia adds a massive additional burden to the global emissions level," Dr Birrell said yesterday. "The reason people are coming here is because they want to share our standard of living. They will buy cars, probably dirty cars."

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the massive cuts in emissions needed to tackle climate change would be possible only through technology breakthroughs leading to zero-emissions electricity.

And coal and power workers became the latest to apply pressure for adequate protection under an emissions trading policy, with the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union warning that the Government must avoid "mass job losses".

National secretary Dave Oliver said "Government intervention is crucial if we are to avoid mass job losses such as occurred following tariff reductions and free trade agreements in the past. This means actually having a national plan for Australian manufacturing, including investing in research and development."

The union today releases a poll of 400 members in Gippsland, NSW and Queensland, which showed strong support for action on climate change. Sixty three per cent agreed the Government should be acting even if it meant higher energy prices.

[Brocke]

Perhaps you can take the baton and contact this guy... 

If you want I can email the full exchange over the weeks.

I think you have done an excellent job, way better than I could have.

This guy Steve has totally bought into Peak Oil. Five years ago he would have been called a nut. Now, it's the acceptable paradigm.

 

[KiwiClare]

Has Steve's seen the documentary that shows that free and clean energy inventions are being suppressed?  It helps to get folk thinking outside of the square, that one. 

Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7365305906535911834

I heard that a man who had worked for Shell for over 2 decades, was taken to a room full of suppressed inventions at the Shell HQ in Holland.

Water Powered Car
http://waterpoweredcar.com/

[KiwiClare]

I love it -      and in case anyone forgot he was Bill Clinton's buddy - have you seen The Clinton Chronicles? Make sure you do - it will make your toes curl. The level of criminality evinced by Bill Clinton would make the Mafia blush, yet Gore stood by him.

 Plus remember Al Gore is a politician, he is the son of a politician and he graduated with a BA in Government, not with a Bachelor of Science. He is duplicitous. He doesn’t practice what he preaches. When he was Vice President, he did nothing for genuine environmental problems, such as the dissemination of DU, nanotechnology and GMOs. And throughout the years he has flogged the “carbon polluters,” he and his family have been aiding and profiting from an oil company on a grand scale. Gore’s political influence has enabled the Occidental Petroleum Company, which former CEO, Armand Hammer said had Gore’s father in his back pocket, to acquire the oil-drilling rights over 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve in California. Not only did the 1997 sale represent the largest quantity of public land to be turned over to a private corporation in US history, but it also spelt doom for the Kitanemuk people’s traditional lands and encroached upon an area environmentalists said was home to three rare animal species. On the very same day as the sale, in an audacious display of hypocrisy, one which should serve as a warning to us all, Gore gave a speech on the “terrifying prospect” of global warming, a problem that he ascribed to the unchecked use of fossil fuels, such as oil!.

Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate, (29/8/2000), by B. Mesler at http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

[mr anderson]

I think you have done an excellent job, way better than I could have.

This guy Steve has totally bought into Peak Oil. Five years ago he would have been called a nut. Now, it's the acceptable paradigm.

 

As Bill Hicks said *Throwing seeds* "Planting seeds...planting seeds".

Yeah it's the Climate Change Coalition so it's his job lol.

[mr anderson]

This was after PM Rudd said he would promise to stop political advertising by Government

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/where_are_rudds_climate_catastrophe_fridge_magnets/

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/coverington/index.php/theaustralian/comments/climate_ad_paints_eery_future/

Caroline Overington Blog | July 22, 2008 | 29 Comments

THERE is a joke doing the rounds in Canberra, and it goes like this: I’ll believe in climate change when a chunk of ice falls off Penny Wong.

This is not to say that Wong is icy, per se, but the coolness with which she approaches the end of the world is somewhat unnerving. But then, so too is the Rudd Government’s new climate change commercial.

First up, let’s say the commercial looks just like the British climate change ads, launched in 2006.

They had solar panels, wind farms, smoke stacks, barren earth, dry riverbeds … and deer. Ours have solar panels, wind farms, smoke stacks, barren earth, dry riverbeds … and sheep.

Their deer run, startled, across the landscape. Our sheep stand there, looking gormless.

Our commercial also has a naked baby. It doesn’t explode into flames or blister under the reddening sun or anything, so one assumes it’s part of the ongoing Australian series: our children, nude for your pleasure.

Anyway, what the ad doesn’t tell the viewers is what they really need to know, which is: what is the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme, exactly? And how much will it cost me, as a citizen, or us, as shareholders in business?

There may be a reason they’re not saying, of course. They may have no idea.

Still, one good thing has come out of it. There was a rumour that Cate Blanchett was going to narrate the ads, but since when is Ms Blanchett an authority on climate change? Let’s be sensible, and wait to hear what Angelina Jolie has to say.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLDsF1YVQ38

[mr anderson]

“I see there is an emerging body of scientific opinion which questions the role of carbon in all of this, but I’m strongly of the view that we give the planet the benefit of the doubt”. - Dr. Brendan Nelson

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/leader_looking_muddled/

B.Nelson.MP@aph.gov.au I suggest emailing him urging him to watch Global Warming or Global Governance.

[Optimus]

Limit families to two children 'to combat climate change'
GPs should tell parents not to have more than two children to help in the battle against climate change, according to doctors.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2454215/Limit-families-to-two-children-to-combat-climate-change.html
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
Last Updated: 4:28AM BST 25 Jul 2008

The world's population increases by 1.5m each week and babies born in the UK will use more greenhouse gases during their lifetime than those born in the developing world.

Two doctors, writing in the British Medical Journal, suggest that doctors should talk to their patients about climate change and encourage them to think about the consequences of having a big family.

Investing in contraception would help in the fight against climate change, they argue.

John Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning and reproductive health, at University College London and GP Dr Pip Hayes, from Exeter wrote: "Unplanned pregnancy, especially in teenagers, is a problem for the planet, as well as the individual concerned.

"But what about planned pregnancies? Should we now explain to UK couples who plan a family that stopping at two children, or at least having one less child than first intended, is the simplest and biggest contribution anyone can make to leaving a habitable planet for our grandchildren?

"We must not put pressure on people, but by providing information on the population and the environment, and appropriate contraception for everyone (and by their own example), doctors should help to bring family size into the arena of environmental ethics, analogous to avoiding patio heaters and high carbon cars."

They said it is not necessary to resort to the sort of draconian measures used by countries like India and China and by improving access to contraception, the number of unplanned pregnancies would be reduced.

The authors quoted examples such as Iran where the average family size reduced from 5.5 to two, the level needed to simply maintain the current population, within 15 years after a policy was introduced to teach all couples about family planning and contraception before they married.

They also pointed out that The Optimum Population Trust calculates that 'each new UK birth will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions . . . than a new birth in Ethiopia'.

Prof Martin Parry, co-chair, of a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said: "There are lots of good reasons for having a sensible population policy but climate change is not necessarily an additional strong reason for reducing population.

"The main cause of climate change has been dirty development. What we need to do if focus on improving our standard of living by clean development and that can be done without substantial changes in population policy."

Have Your Say: Should GPs tell parents how many children they should have?

[TruthHunter]

What do you do if someone marries has two children then divorces and marries again? Can you deny the partner who hasn't had any children their right to have two because the other partner already has two? What about people who have lots of one night stands, some of which may not even know they have children?  How about people who never bother to get married? Do they count as a couple? What about adoption? Can you adopt more children if you already have two, especially if the adopted children come from outside the country?

[mr anderson]

Seriously I saw this very talking point on the Q&A website. www.abc.net.au/qanda

http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=114&m=6743&ps=20&dm=2

This is not an entirely original thought but we should extend the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to include new births in excess of two per couple.

Within a year of the birth of a "qualifying" child the couple would have to surrender emission permits to a total amount that would be based on the total value of the annual per capita estimated emissions over the lifetime of that child.

To maximize economic efficiency the permits would be tradeable on the Carbon Exchange like all other permits.

I could go on but more fertile minds than mine could refine and expand on these ideas.

[mr anderson]

http://www.retail.org.au/index.php/news/Retailers_caution_against_Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme_ARA_says%3A_Show_us_the_science_Wong

Retailers caution against Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme ARA says: Show us the science Wong

Posted by: Kerrie Flanagan on Thu, 24 July 2008 13:04:44

Peak retail industry body the Australian Retailers Association (ARA) has cautioned against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme planned to be implemented by 2010 and has called on Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong to open up broader debate about global warming and the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

ARA Executive Director Richard Evans said retailers are concerned about the proposed start date of the ETS.

"Before GST was introduced, it was debated going into an election and then after an election during the legislative process. The Rudd Government is calling ETS the biggest economic shift since the introduction of GST, yet they plan to legislate within 12 months and implement by 2010. It is simply too soon.

"Contrary to the discussion surrounding the introduction of GST, there has been no debate regarding the science behind the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Government's rhetoric and dismissive scare tactics are diluting any doubts about the impact of carbon pollution on climate change.

"Rocket scientist and climate change expert David Evans (who produced FullCAM - used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol) has publicly stated most of the public and key decision makers are not aware of the most basic, salient facts about the causes of global warming. He states:  ‘There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.' (The Australian, ‘ No smoking hot spot', Friday 18 July 2008).

"The real inconvenient truth for the Rudd Government may be that science doesn't back up the theory behind ETS. We're very concerned about the costs of ETS being passed onto consumers along the entire supply chain. A very real question to ask is the likely impact of ETS on the cost of a basket of food," Evans said.

"This will significantly impact retailers who are heavy energy users, particularly when refrigeration of groceries is taken into account, but retailers have been ignored in terms of financial offsets and rebates. There is no economic modeling included in the Green Paper but retailers and consumers alike need to be asking questions about the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on grocery prices.

"There has been too much passive discussion surrounding ETS and not enough questioning. This is the biggest economic shift since GST and it is time for all Australians to roll their sleeves up and get involved in this debate rather than just accept the current dismissive ideological narrative," Evans said.

The Australian Retailers Association (ARA) is the peak industry body in Australia's $292 billion retail sector which employs over 1.2 million people. As an incorporated employer body under the Workplace Relations Act and with a range of member services including business consulting, policy development, advocacy and education, the ARA supports and represents over 5000 members throughout Australia. Visit www.retail.org.au or call 1300 368 041.

[KiwiClare]

There's been no debate around the issue of climate change because everyone is supposed to have been too brainwash to be able to think 

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.
H. L. Mencken

[KiwiClare]

That ad is bollocks.  Al Gore would love it.
 It states that addressing the issue of "climate change" will help the economy.  How will paying carbon taxes help the economy?
And I don't know why the ad says "think" throughout most of it...they don't want people to think, they want them to accept what they are told. As Stephen Leacock stated: "Advertising may be described as the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it."

[GoingEtheric]

Think, think , think... Subliminal use, for sure.
Sounds like the same british PR firm, mate.

[KiwiClare]

B.Nelson.MP@aph.gov.au I suggest emailing him urging him to watch Global Warming or Global Governance.

And Endgame?

[mr anderson]

And Endgame?

Starting off slow 

[la Resistance]

Oh please do. Something about Brendan Nelson interests me; especially the fact that the News media seem to be so rough on him (why!?).

[mr anderson]

Oh please do. Something about Brendan Nelson interests me; especially the fact that the News media seem to be so rough on him (why!?).

I never have found that out. Just the cult of personality Kevin Rudd has, but I've heard that some Labor supporters are already wising up; 7 months into a 3 year term. Who knows what the next 2 years will bring with Iran a few months away.

It's almost identical with Obama, he's popular so naturally all the popularity will drain from McCain.

[la Resistance]

I never have found that out. Just the cult of personality Kevin Rudd has, but I've heard that some Labor supporters are already wising up; 7 months into a 3 year term. Who knows what the next 2 years will bring with Iran a few months away.

It's almost identical with Obama, he's popular so naturally all the popularity will drain from McCain.

Funny that they're already leery of Kevin, isn't it? I think it's great that we had the change-up in the Liberal Party, I had had it up to my eyes with Hoplophobe Howard; and Costello is a bitter dweeb. Doctor Nelson intrigues me...

...I wonder if we can show him what happened with Ron Paul? I'm thinking, that medical doctor photo of Paul with the baby, could inspire Nelson... If he wised up to what the world's undercurrents are, he could deliver democracy in Australia and be very dangerous. Perhaps that's why the media don't trust him?

Besides that, if he is ostracized, he will be cynical of the media anyway, and hopefully open to alternatives... One can hope... I should write an e-mail.


...with Iran a few months away, there is no way I am going anywhere near the Reserves - because I'm pretty sure a land-war involving Russia could incite a national defense emergency.

[mr anderson]

Funny that they're already leery of Kevin, isn't it? I think it's great that we had the change-up in the Liberal Party, I had had it up to my eyes with Hoplophobe Howard; and Costello is a bitter dweeb. Doctor Nelson intrigues me...

...I wonder if we can show him what happened with Ron Paul? I'm thinking, that medical doctor photo of Paul with the baby, could inspire Nelson... If he wised up to what the world's undercurrents are, he could deliver democracy in Australia and be very dangerous. Perhaps that's why the media don't trust him?

Besides that, if he is ostracized, he will be cynical of the media anyway, and hopefully open to alternatives... One can hope... I should write an e-mail.


...with Iran a few months away, there is no way I am going anywhere near the Reserves - because I'm pretty sure a land-war involving Russia could incite a national defense emergency.

I doubt there'd be a draft BUT remember the Anzus Treaty.

Article IV

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article V

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.
If there is a draft run to a neighbouring pacific island or Central Australia in regional towns.

[mr anderson]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/vvvv/

[mr anderson]

http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/07/23/Rudd_slammed_for_getting_climate_change_all_wrong

MP3 Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LHKUIpMuSs

A former senior advisor to the Federal Government claims the Prime Minister has got it wrong on climate change.

Dr David Evans has said the decision makers and the public are unaware of the evolving research, and are still stuck in the science of 1995. He says the government is misleading the public on climate change, giving false facts on global warming.

Dr Evans has told 2GB’s Jason Morrison they're basing all their climate change policies on data that's years out of date.

“Since 1990 western governments have spent about $50 billion in research and associated sort of stuff, looking for the causes of climate change, looking for any evidence.

“The only thing we ever found was the old ice core data but that has been reversed by the new ice course. What we found instead was the evidence that carbon emissions definitely do not cause the current global warming.”

Dr Evans has slammed Penny Wong, saying her argument that the hottest years on record all occurred in the last 13 years, is incorrect. He also questioned her lack of evidence to prove carbon emissions cause climate change.

Meanwhile, Labor’s multi-million dollar advertising campaign on climate change has been slammed again, with Brendan Nelson saying it’s fluffy and doesn't look at the global picture.

The Rudd government has launched a campaign to sell its emissions trading scheme with ads that show the dangers of climate change through images of chimneys and parched earth.

The opposition leader says he agrees there's a need to educate Australians over the economics of climate change and the emissions trading scheme, but says the campaign must include the fact there's also damage done by other nations, and that Australia can't go it alone.

[Brocke]

OMG the disinfo and propaganda. No wonder people believe it!


The human face of climate change (Global Humanitarian Forum)
28 Jul 2008
Source: IFRC

VIDEO: The human face of climate change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OruIaPiFFHc

Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.

This video, produced by the Red Cross, the Global Humanitarian Forum and dev.tv, gives a direct insight into the impact of climate change on people's lives around the world.

There are interviews with farmers, disaster survivors, aid volunteers, officials and children from Bangladesh, the Bahamas, Bolivia, Britain, Malawi and the Maldives.

A schoolgirl in the Bahamas explains why she's decided to learn to swim, a Bangladeshi Red Crescent volunteer tells how people were killed by Cyclone Sidr despite his efforts to warn them, and a park ranger in La Paz says unpredictable weather has made farming coca more attractive than coffee.

http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/121724475680.htm

[Brocke]

Women more worried about climate change than men: poll

A new poll shows women are more worried than men about climate change and they're more anti-coal.

The poll comissioned by Greenpeace shows 40 per cent of women think Australia's coal exports should be cut compared to 27 per cent of men.

The burning of coal to generate electricity is considered a key driver of climate change and the largest source of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenpeace campaigner Simon Roz says it's contradictory and immoral for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to be expanding Australia's export coal industry while talking about urgent action on climate change.

http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/07/28/Women_more_worried_about_climate_change_than_men_poll

[mr anderson]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/exaggerators_ipcc_accused_by_its_own/

Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 at 12:03am

IPCC external reviewer Dr Madhav Khandekar says the UN body has exaggerated the costs of global warming:

    Using unpublished work to bolster claims of escalating economic costs while ignoring peer reviewed studies which document otherwise is an unacceptable and unscientific practice…

    The exaggerated claim of GW impacts by the IPCC has led to a distortion of the reality of climate change and its future impact. The earth’s climate has changed and is changing continuously, a fact accepted by most climate scientists on both sides of the present debate. Is the present climate change deleterious to human societies? Are there beneficial aspects of climate change that have been overlooked? Do adverse impacts outweigh beneficial impacts? We do not have all the answers yet. There is a definite need to carefully analyze climate change impact on world-wide human societies. The IPCC assessment is far from objective and needs to be critically re-assessed.

The full paper, kindly sent to me by Dr Khandekar, a former research scientist with Environment Canada who holds a PhD in meteorology and has worked in the fields of climatology, is below:

    MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.
    5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
    Reprinted from
    ENERGY &
    ENVIRONMENT
    VOLUME 19 No. 5 2008

    HAS THE IPCC EXAGGERATED ADVERSE IMPACT
    OF GLOBAL WARMING ON HUMAN SOCIETIES?
    by
    Madhav L Khandekar

    HAS THE IPCC EXAGGERATED ADVERSE IMPACT
    OF GLOBAL WARMING ON HUMAN SOCIETIES?

    Madhav L Khandekar1
    Environmental Consultant Unionville Ontario CANADA

    1. INTRODUCTION
    Has the IPCC exaggerated adverse impact of Global Warming on human societies?
    Yes, Certainly! Let me explain: While reviewing the IPCC WGII (Working Group
    II) Chapter “Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed
    systems” (Chpt.1, WGII IPCC, 2007) as an external reviewer, I felt time and time
    again that there were areas where the chapter authors highlighted adverse impact of
    GW (Global Warming) on human societies, while downplaying possible beneficial
    impacts. The IPCC authors referred to several publications which projected adverse
    impacts while ignoring many excellent studies which have questioned these
    projections. Throughout the text of this important chapter of WGII, there were many
    instances where adverse impact was highlighted or exaggerated, while possible
    beneficial impacts were totally ignored. Further, IPCC authors while assessing
    observed changes in natural systems chose to highlight only those changes which
    support the GW hypothesis while completely ignoring other observed changes which
    did not conform to the human-induced GW hypothesis and change. Such cherrypicking
    of observed climate change to bolster claims of human-caused GW and
    climate change is disingenuous and does not help understand the real cause of how and
    why the earth’s climate has changed in historical and geological times.
    A detailed reading of the Chapter left me with an impression that the deleterious
    impact of GW on human societies was so imminent and overwhelming that unless
    something is done right away (to curb the warming), human societies world over are
    about to perish!

    The following section provides selected examples (from Ch 1 WGII) of
    exaggerated claims made by the IPCC authors:

    713
    1Dr Madhav L Khandekar is a former Research Scientist from Environment Canada and is presently on the
    editorial board of the Journal Natural Hazards ( Kluwer, Netherlands). Khandekar has been in the fields of
    weather & climate for over fifty years and has published over 120 papers, reports, book reviews etc. While
    at Environment Canada, Khandekar wrote a monograph on ocean surface wave analysis and modeling which
    has been published by Springer-Verlag in 1989. Khandekar is an External Reviewer for the IPCC 2007
    Climate Change Documents.

    Address for correspondence: 52 Montrose Crescent, Unionville, Ontario, Canada, L3R 7Z5:
    mkhandekar@rogers.com

    714 Energy & Environment · Vol. 19, No. 5, 2008

    2. SELECTED EXAMPLES
    1. Executive Summary: Here the GW impacts are listed under several
    categories, in each a deleterious impact is prominently spelled out. Examples:
    increasing droughts and flash floods, widespread coastal erosion, cryospheric
    changes and resulting glacial floods, increased run-off in snow & glacial
    basins, lower crop yields due to warming with an example for the Sahel region
    (Africa) due to reduction in decadal scale precipitation, impact on human
    health (cholera etc) related to El Nino-Southern Oscillation incidences,
    increased vector-borne diseases and some water-borne diseases, increasing
    global catastrophes and significant increases in the values of exposure at risk.
    2. Observed Changes in systems & Sectors: Here examples given are:
    cryospheric reduction world-wide and rapid glacier melts in South America,
    escalating sea-level rise, the European heat wave of summer 2003, increase in
    world-wide drought areas and possibly in flood areas as well, changes in
    coastal processes due to escalating sea-level rise.

    3. Terrestrial & Biological Systems: changes in phenology (seasonal activities
    of animals and plants) and their northward migration in Europe.

    4. Agriculture & Forestry: The overall discussion emphasizes reduction in
    crops and yields due to warming with specific example of Sahel region;
    increased risk of forest fire activity with increasing temperature.

    5. Human Health: Here an increased possibility of outbreak of malaria with
    examples from East Africa ( Kenya) and South Asia, water-borne disease like
    cholera in South Asia and other ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation) related
    health impacts in Asia are highlighted.

    6. Disasters & Hazards: A general theme here is “ increase in catastrophic
    events like floods, droughts, heat waves etc and related economic losses
    worldwide which are all directly related to warming of the earth’s surface
    temperature’. As supporting evidence, a couple of unpublished documents are
    cited, while several published studies refuting such increases are ignored.

    3. A REALITY CHECK WITH OBSERVATIONS
    AND PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES
    It is imperative to analyze various claims made above in the context of the reality of
    climate as it continues to evolve in different regions of the earth. It is also important
    to carefully assess all available literature and observed data to determine if the present
    climate does indeed follow the “Global Warming” path as projected by the IPCC
    scientists and the climate model projections.

    The Executive Summary for Chapter 1 uses terms like “increase in floods, flash
    floods etc” which are very general in nature and do not appear to have been thoroughly
    analyzed to determine if there is indeed a ‘human influence’ in such events. Several
    peer-reviewed studies published in recent literature document an increase in extreme
    weather (EW) however, a close analysis reveals that such ‘increase’ is more a
    perception than reality. In a report prepared for the Government of Alberta in western
    Canada (Khandekar 2002), I have examined typical EW events like thunderstorms,
    tornadoes, floods, droughts, heat waves for the Canadian Prairie provinces and
    concluded that none of the EW events showed any increase in recent years. I have also
    examined such EW events elsewhere (Khandekar et al, 2005) and the general
    conclusion was that these events did not show any systematic increase/decrease in
    recent years. As synthesized by Khandekar et al (2005) “the link between GW & EW
    is more a perception than reality, this perception being fostered as a result of increased
    awareness and media attention to such weather events”. Additional discussion on EW
    will be presented in a later section.

    A reality check for some of the items listed earlier is presented below:
    1. Cryospheric Reduction: Glacier retreat and advances are part of natural
    variability and not a direct consequence of GW as IPCC authors seem to imply
    in their assessment. The authors have avoided referring to many studies readily
    available in peer-reviewed literature while emphasizing studies which
    purportedly show ‘rapid’ shrinking of world-wide glaciers and associated sealevel
    rise. One of the most talked about examples is the ‘vanishing ice cap on
    Mt Kilimanjaro’ in equatorial Africa. This melting has been going on for well
    over a hundred years now as documented in a paper by Kaser et al (2004). The
    paper by Kaser et al discounts any GW impact and suggests a drastic drop in
    atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier
    climate as possible reasons for the declining ice cap. Ironically however, the
    authors of Ch1 did not refer to this important paper as well as several other
    papers on the glaciers in the Swiss Alps and elsewhere (e.g., Hormes et al
    2001, 2006). A few other papers suggest glacier shrinking to solar variability
    during the Holocene in particular. The issue of glacier retreat and advance is
    much more complex than what IPCC authors have presented in their simplistic
    treatment using the GW hypothesis.

    2. The European summer 2003 heat wave: The heat wave in Europe during
    June-July of 2003 was an exceptional event and received wide publicity
    because of a large number of fatalities due to dehydration and heat stress
    which affected several thousand elderly people in France and elsewhere in
    Western Europe. Although an exceptional weather event, the 2003 European
    heat wave was by no means unprecedented and was a result of a persistent
    upper-level ridge of high pressure over the Continent (see AMS Bulletin,
    June 2004). Linking the 2003 heat wave in Europe to human activity is
    unconvincing and without any merit. Such heat waves have occurred in the
    past in various parts of the earth and have been triggered by various
    reasons, most commonly due to an anomalous but not uncommon
    atmospheric flow pattern. What is of interest here is that just six months
    earlier, the winter months of December 2002 and January 2003 were
    unusually cold in many parts of North America, Europe and this unusually
    cold winter was felt even in the tropical latitudes of Vietnam and
    Bangladesh where several hundred people died of long exposure to
    significantly below normal temperatures. The winter season of 2002/03 over
    Northern Hemisphere was much more wide-spread globally than the
    Has the IPCC Exaggerated Adverse Impact of Global Warming on Human Societies? 715
    European heat wave of summer 2003. The IPCC authors highlighted the
    European heat wave as an example of human activity induced EW event,
    but completely ignored the unusually cold winter season of 2002/03. Also
    the summer (June/July/August) of 2004 was one of the coldest over most of
    North America. These and many other recent climate anomalies of cold as
    well as warm season are most certainly due to natural climate variability
    and are in no way associated with human activity.

    3. Changes in phenology: Most studies cited in this area are almost
    exclusively for Europe where considerable research efforts have documented
    changes in bird and vegetation migration in the last few years. However a
    significant lack of such studies from other regions of the world makes it
    difficult to draw any conclusion about climate change link to this
    ‘northward’ migration. The IPCC authors do not provide any explanation for
    lack of studies in other regions while concluding climate change impact on
    (global-scale) phenology.

    4. Impact on Agriculture: The IPCC authors imply a deleterious impact of GW
    warming on agriculture by providing an example of Sahel region where
    recurring droughts have reduced peanut crop yield in recent years. The IPCC
    authors completely ignore increased agriculture yields in other grain
    producing regions (India, Canada, USA, Australia) where the mean
    temperature has warmed by about 1C in the last fifty years, however grain
    yields have not declined at all. In India, improved farming and irrigation
    technology has resulted in four to five fold increases in rice and wheat yield
    since 1950 (see Selvaraju 2003). Similar increase in grain yield has been
    recorded in other grain producing countries which IPCC authors have
    completely ignored. The IPCC authors also ignore the beneficial impacts of
    increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide on world-wide forestry. Recent
    satellite data show convincingly that the world forests have been enriched due
    to increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and this has helped increase the
    “greening” of the earth’s surface.

    5. Disasters & Hazards: The IPCC continues with its theme of “increased
    catastrophes world-wide leading to increased economic losses”. The evidence
    for increased economic losses is presented using an obscure unpublished study
    (Miller et al 2006) while several peer-reviewed studies, notably by the highly
    respected US climatologist Stanley Changnon are completely ignored.
    Changnon and his associates have amply documented that the Shifting
    Economic Impacts from Weather Extremes is a Result of Societal Change, Not
    Global Warming (Chagnon 2003, Chagnon et al 2001). Using unpublished
    work to bolster claims of escalating economic costs while ignoring peerreviewed
    studies which document otherwise is an unacceptable and
    unscientific practice.

    6. Human Health: The IPCC raises the specter of malaria becoming more
    prevalent in a warmer future climate. The IPCC also refers to possible increase
    in cholera and other ENSO related health impacts in south Asia, in particular.
    Several studies by Dr Paul Reiter, an expert epidemiologist at the Pasteur
    Institute in Paris (e.g., Reiter 2001) demonstrate that the mosquito-borne
    716 Energy & Environment · Vol. 19, No. 5, 2008
    diseases like malaria and dengue fever were prevalent in Europe and elsewhere
    even during the Little Ice Age. Reiter further demonstrates that the control of
    malaria and dengue is determined by human activity, ecology and vector
    biology and there is no simple relationship to changing climate or to GW. The
    IPCC reference to cholera and other ENSO related health impacts in south
    Asia is a normal occurrence during the Asian Monsoon season and has no
    relation to GW or climate change.

    4. EXTREME WEATHER, SEA-LEVEL RISE AND OTHER ISSUES
    Extreme Weather (EW) and Sea-level Rise (SLR) are two of the most contentious
    issues in the present debate on GW impact. The IPCC Documents and climate
    models project increasing EW events and an escalating SLR as the earth’s mean
    temperature rises in future. As mentioned earlier, the EW/GW link is more a
    perception than reality, primarily due to increased media attention. Many EW events
    of the past have remained unnoticed and unreported due to lack of observing
    technology and/or due to lack of interest in these events at the time. The recent
    media hype about EW events has provided a new spin to these events as the
    harbinger of future climate! Ironically, some of the winter season EW events are
    also being linked with GW impact which neither the IPCC nor the climate models
    project as possible GW impact. The recent statement on EW put out by the WMO
    (World Meteorological Organization, Geneva) includes some winter weather
    extremes of the Southern Hemisphere (SH). Two noteworthy winter weather
    extremes from the SH this year are: 1. several centimeters of snow in Buenos Aires
    (Argentina) on July 7, 2007, followed by a shivering temperature of –22C! The last
    time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! 2. On 27 June 2007, a cold front moved
    across South Africa bringing the country’s first significant snowfall since 1981 (25
    cm in parts of the country). Many other winter weather extremes have been reported
    in recent years (see Khandekar 2003, 2004). Interestingly, none of the climate
    models offer any explanation for the increasing frequency of winter weather
    extremes in recent years.

    The SLR and its estimate for the next one hundred years has been a subject of
    several dozen studies in recent years. Many of these studies assume significant melting
    of the Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves (principally Greenland and West Antarctic ice
    sheets) during the next 50 to 100 years and this melt-down could produce an escalated
    SLR with values as high as 1 to 2 meters (or more) over the next 100 years. There are
    several uncertainties in these estimates and the possibility of significant melt-down of
    Arctic & Antarctic Ice Sheets remains far from certain. Other recent papers now seem
    to suggest that the SLR due to melting of mountain glaciers and ice caps (outside of
    Arctic & Antarctic) will only be about 5 cm over next 100 years, just half the earlier
    estimate. Another recent paper (Holgate 2007) documents that the SLR during the first
    half of the 20th century was higher than the latter half of the century, thus discounting
    any suggestion about ‘escalating SLR at present’.

    For many countries in the higher latitudes of both the Hemispheres, the present
    climate change (milder winters, reduced house-heating cost, longer agricultural
    season) can be beneficial in general. The IPCC scientists have completely missed this
    aspect of climate change.

    Has the IPCC Exaggerated Adverse Impact of Global Warming on Human Societies? 717

    5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
    The exaggerated claim of GW impacts by the IPCC has led to a distortion of the reality
    of climate change and its future impact. The earth’s climate has changed and is
    changing continuously, a fact accepted by most climate scientists on both sides of the
    present debate. Is the present climate change deleterious to human societies? Are there
    beneficial aspects of climate change that have been overlooked? Do adverse impacts
    outweigh beneficial impacts? We do not have all the answers yet.
    There is a definite need to carefully analyze climate change impact on world-wide
    human societies. The IPCC assessment is far from objective and needs to be critically
    re-assessed.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Benny Peiser for encouraging me to
    prepare this article.

    REFERENCES
    AMS Bulletin 2004: Annual Climate Review 2003, p. S1–S72, Bulletin American
    Meteorological Society June 2003.
    Changnon S A et al 2000: Trends in socio-economic impacts related to weather & climate
    extremes in the USA. Bulletin, American Meteorological Society, 81, 437–442.
    Changnon S A 2003: Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in the United States: A
    result of societal change, not global warming. Natural Hazards 29, June 2003, 273–290.
    Holgate S J 2007: On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century.
    Geophysical Research Letters, 34 L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492.
    Hormes A. et al 2001: The Alps with little ice: evidence for eight Holocene phases of reduced
    glacier extent in the central Swiss Alps. The Holocene, 11, 255–265.
    Holmes A. et al 2006: A geochronological approach to understanding the role of solar activity
    on Holocene glacier length variability in the Swiss Alps. Geogra. Ann. 88A(4),
    281–294(Swedish Society for Anthropology & Geography).
    Khandekar M L 2002: Trends and changes in extreme weather events: An assessment with a
    focus on Alberta and Canadian Prairies. Report prepared for Alberta Environment (Canada),
    October 2002, ISBN 0-7785-2428-0, p.56.
    Khandekar M L 2003: Comments on WMO statement on extreme weather events. EOS, V 84,
    No. 41, 14 October 2003( FORUM).
    Khandekar M L 2004: Are climate model projections reliable enough for climate policy? Energy
    & Environment 15 521–525.
    Khandekar M L et al 2005: The global warming debate: A review of the state of science. Pure
    & Applied Geophysics 162 1557–1586.
    Miller S et al 2006: Weather related catastrophe loss trends and the impact of climate change.
    To be published ( to be circulated prior to publication) [comment: This is all the info available
    on this study. I find it incredible that the IPCC authors would use this obscure unpublished study
    718 Energy & Environment · Vol. 19, No. 5, 2008
    to bolster claims of increased economic losses while ignoring other available studies which
    refute such claim].
    Reiter Paul 2001: Climate change and mosquito-borne disease. Environmental Health
    Perspectives, 109, 141–161.
    Selvaraju R 2003: Impact of El Nino-Southern Oscillation on Indian food-grain production. Int’l
    J of Climatology 23 187–206.
    Has the IPCC Exaggerated Adverse Impact of Global Warming on Human Societies? 719

[Biggs]

Excellent resource on AGENDA 21 - lots of useful official references and documents etc

http://www.amerikanexpose.com/agenda21/index3.html

[Biggs]

Rumor Mill News Reading Room Archive

AGENDA 21 - SUSTAINABLE MEDICINE + SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT = DUTY TO DIE!!

Posted By: RayelansMailbag <Send E-Mail>
Date: Sunday, 8 April 2007, 9:29 p.m.
CCW On-Target!
Originally Inspired by Northpoint Tactical Teams (NPT)

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/102323

"If you think globalism, Agenda 21 and "community plans" only concern the environment under the noble banner of "saving the earth"... YOU COULD VERY WELL END UP "DEAD" WRONG, as in "dead as a do-do bird!"
Sustainable Medicine + Sustainable Development = Duty to Die
The UN global agenda and "Global Management System" is ALSO about the medical mafia and "sustainable medicine" under the rubric of "sustainable development", better known as

POPULATION REDUCTION.

Dr. Kavorkian was just the initial volley to condition the masses concerning "quality of life".
These qualify of life issues concern not only the "right to die"... but the requirement that you DO!
All Life Forms are Equal?

According to Sustainable Medicine and the UN Biodiversity Treaty, human beings are merely one single strand in nature’s web where all living things are equal. No person has more value than an oak tree, salmon, or long-fingered salamander.

The polar bear lives out its beautiful bearish existence catching fish for food in the Arctic. The bear never presumes to hop a plane to retire in sunny Florida where he burns expensive fossil fuel to get there, cannot fish for himself, and needs Medicare to keep his white hairs on his tough hide. But the person who lives in frigid Minnesota or northern New York, called a snowbird, arrogantly flies south to Florida to live out his long, brutish old age burdening the environment and taxing the medical budget.
No person has more value than a wolf, lion, snake, or cougar that attacks a human being simply by intrinsic animal nature. The animal that kills a person acts according to his natural animal instinct. The person who kills an animal for food or for sport acts by volitional human reason propelled by a fatal human will to dominate the ecosystem.

The cardinal principle of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development is: Human beings are…entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. Lives not in harmony with nature are lives unworthy of life.

Healthy, fit people burden the carrying power of the earth and are eco-sustainable only with the restrained, intentionally limited technology of Sustainable Medicine. Sick people are not eco-sustainable. Human beings and their expensive, consuming, polluting civilization have a duty to die. [Excerpt from Part III, Sustainable Medicine + Sustainable Development = Duty to Die by the late Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D.]

THINK IT WON'T AFFECT YOU OR YOUR LIFE?
THINK AGAIN!
YOUR 'OX' WILL GET GORED... IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME!
A REAL TIME EXAMPLE... BY VACCINATION.

WHO MURDERED AFRICA.

That is NOT a question! It is a declarative statement.

WHO, the U.N. World Health Organization, MURDERED Africa with the AIDS virus. That's a provocative statement, isn't it? The made-for-TV-news suspects in this mystery, the homosexuals, the green monkey, and the Haitians were only PAWNS in this deadly attack on the non-Communist world. If you believe the government propaganda that AIDS is hard to catch then you are going to die even sooner than the rest of us! The common cold is a virus. Have you ever had a cold? How did you catch it? You really don't know, do you? If the cold virus were fatal, how many people would there be left in the world?

According to William Campbell Douglass, M.D., the WHO, in published articles, called for scientists to work with deadly agents, known as "retro viruses" made from such things as bovine leukemia virus in cows and visna virus in sheep. While these viruses are lethal to the animals, they are non-reactive in humans. "Retro virus" means that they can change the genetic composition of cells that they center. The WHO called for scientists to attempt to make a hybrid virus that would be deadly to humans by the use of these retro-viruses! "An attempt should be made to see if viruses can in fact exert selective effects on immune function. The possibility should be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be impaired if the infecting virus damages, more or less selectively, the cell responding to the virus."

THAT'S AIDS! What the WHO is saying in plain English is, "Let's cook up a virus that selectively destroys the T-cell system of man... an Acquired Immune Deficiency" or "AID's" for short. WHY WOULD THE WHO WANT TO DO THIS? Population control and reduction so as maintain "sustainable communities."
But what about the "green monkey?" Some of the best virologists in the world and many of those directly involved in AIDS research, such as Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier have said the green monkey may be the culprit. You know the story: A green monkey bit a native on the ass and, bam - AIDS all over central Africa.

There is a fatal flaw here. A very strange fatal flaw. Because Gallo, Montagnier and other virologists know that the AIDS virus doesn't occur naturally in monkeys. In fact it doesn't occur naturally in any animal. AIDS started practically simultaneously in the United States, Haiti, Brazil, and Central Africa. Was the green monkey a jet pilot? According to Dr. William Douglas, examination of the gene structure of the green monkey cells proves that it is not genetically possible to transfer the AIDS virus from monkeys to man by natural means.

Because of the artificial nature of the AIDS virus, it will not easily transfer from man to man until it has become very concentrated in the body fluids through repeated injections from person to person, such as drug addicts, and through high multiple partner sexual activity such as takes place in Africa and among homosexuals. After repeated transfer it can become a "natural" infection for man, which it has. So, where did AID's come from, if not the green monkey?

Dr. Theodore Strecker's research of the literature indicates that the National Cancer Institute in COLLABORATION with the World Health Organization, MADE THE AID's VIRUS in their laboratories at Fort Detrick (now NCI), Maryland. They combined the deadly retroviruses, bovine leukemia virus and sheep visna virus, and injected them into human tissue cultures. The result was the AID's virus, the first human retrovirus known to man and now believed to be 100 percent fatal to those infected.

The green monkey is off the hook. But what about the Communists? Communists are in the process of conducting germ warfare from Fort Detrick, Maryland against the free world, especially the United States, even using foreign communist agents within the United States Army's germ warfare unit, euphemistically called the Army Infectious Disease Unit. Don't believe it? Carlton Gajusek, an NIH bigshot a Ft. Detrick admitted it in a March, 1986 article in Omni Magazine at page 106.

So, if the delivery "vehicle" was not a green monkey or a jet plane flown by a green monkey, what was? It was a smallpox vaccine and the geographical sites chosen in 1972 at the conclusion of the WHO Federation Proceedings were Uganda and other African states, Haiti, Brazil and Japan. The present and recent past of AID's epidemiology coincides with these EXACT SAME geographical areas.

There are, as a result of the laboratory experiments completed at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, upwards of 9,000 to the fourth power possible AID's viruses. There are 9,000 base pairs on the genome. So the fun has just begun. Some will cause brain rot similar to the sheep visna virus, some leukemia-like diseases from the cow virus and some that won't do anything. So the virus will be constantly changing and trying out new esoteric diseases on hapless man. The delivery vehicle: VACCINE!

This is not the first time virologists have brought disaster to man. The SV-40 virus from monkey cell cultures contaminated polio cultures. Most people in their 40's are now carrying this virus through contaminated polio vaccinations given in the early 1960's. It is known to cause brain cancer, which explains the increase in this disease following inoculation. This is the "origin" of the green monkey theory of how AID's evolved. The polio vaccine was grown on green monkey kidney cells. SIXTY-FOUR MILLION AMERICANS were vaccinated with SV-40 contaminated vaccine in the 60's. An increase in cancer of the brain, possibly multiple sclerosis, and God only knows what else is the tragic result. The delay between vaccination and the onset of cancer with this virus is as long as 20 to 30 years. 1965 plus 20 years equals 1985. GET THE PICTURE?

The final piece of the puzzle is how AIDS devastated the homosexual population in the United States. It wasn't from smallpox vaccination as in Africa because the medical community doesn't do that any more. There is no smallpox in the United States and so the vaccination was discontinued.

The AID's virus didn't exist in the United States before 1978. You can check back in any hospital and no stored blood samples can be found anywhere that exhibit the AID's virus before 1978. So what happened in 1978 and thereafter to cause AID's to burst upon the scene and devastate the homosexual segment of the population? It was the introduction of the hepatitis B vaccine which exhibits the exact same epidemiology of AID's!

A Doctor W. Schmugner, born in Poland and educated in Russia, came to this country in 1969. Schmugner's immigration o the U.S. was probably the most fateful immigration in our history. He, by unexplained process, became the head of the New York City blood bank. (How does a Russian trained doctor become head of one of the largest blood banks in the world?) Doesn't that strike you as peculiar? It was Dr. Schmugner who set-up the rules for the hepatitis B vaccine studies. Only males between the ages of 20 and 40, who were not monogamous, would be allowed to participate in this study.

The Centers For Disease Control (an oxymoron if there ever was one!) reported in 1981 that four-percent of those receiving the hepatitis B vaccine were AID's-infected. In 1984 they admitted to 60 percent. Now they refuse to give out figures at all because they don't want to admit that 100 percent of hepatitis vaccine recipients are infected with AID's!

So, where is the data on the hepatitis vaccine studies? FDA? CDC? No, the U.S. Department of Justice has it buried where you will never see it. And now you know why "attorney's" figure prominently in the creation of "Uniform" and "Model" Acts and pretended statutory provisions, to "help implement international treaties of the United States or where world uniformity would be desirable." (See: 1990/91 Reference Book, National Council of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws.) It is the attorneys, acting through their respective State Bar Associations, and operating under a different "Constitution And By-Laws", far distant from the depositories of the public records, who have promulgated, lobbied for, passed, adjudicated and ordered the implementation of these "Uniform" and "Model" Acts. That's globalism, Agenda 21, the New World Order and it's sustainable medicine paradigm. This is apparently what Robert Bork meant when he wrote: "We are governed not by law or elected representatives, but by an UNelected, UNrepresentative, UNaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own." (See: The Tempting Of America, Robert H. Bork, pg. 130.)

For a complete review of the foregoing, Google search "William Campbell Douglas, MD".

Sustainable Medicine + Sustainable Development = Duty to Die (Parts I & II)
by Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D.

Summary: The late Dr. Cosman was an avid defender of freedom. She passed away in March, one year ago. As a tribute to Dr. Cosman and her work, we are publishing an unabridged version of her three part series on Sustainable Medicine.

Full Text: Part I. U.N. AGENDA 21 AND SUSTAINABLE MEDICINE

Legend, not science, states that crabs are easier to boil than frogs.

Frogs placed in a pot of hot water jump out to safety. In a cauldron of crabs, however, if one crab laboriously crawls up the pot wall from the hot water to the rim to escape, the other crabs snatch him back down so they all cook together.

Frogs are individualists who save their skins and know their minds. Crabs are egalitarian communitarians. What is good for one is good for all. Most Americans are either frogs or crabs. Frogs cherish private property, their bodies, and demand personal responsibility for medical directions and medical decisions.

Crabs cherish the state, its central control, and state medical decisions for everyone in the group. Crabs live by Hegel’s philosophy that whatever is efficient is right.

Crab world-view, crab means of analyzing reality, and crab ethics of action are the philosophical foundations of the United Nations’ Agenda 21, Chapter 6, and its Sustainable Medicine.

Sustainable Medicine is central to the concept of Sustainable Development of the world’s landmasses, air, and water.

Sustainable Development esteems the planet’s intrinsically valuable environment. In that bio-diverse environment human beings are a dangerous, capricious burden. In the Agenda 21 worldview, people, especially rich intelligent people, consume too much and they make too many of themselves. Their effects must be curbed and their numbers reduced.

Sustainable Development is a private property land grab. It is justified in the name of global equity, overcoming economic disparities, and assuring global integrity of the environment. Sustainable Medicine is a body grab. It is justified in the name of achieving global medical equity, overcoming health disparities, and assuring an enduring global environment free of too many people.

Sustainable Medicine makes decisions through visioning councils that determine what shall be done or not done to each body in its group in its native habitat. Sustainable Medicine experts do not refer to citizens in sovereign nations but to “humans” in their “settlements.”

Sustainable Medicine uses two classes of public actions to affect the largest numbers of people worldwide most efficiently. The first class of actions attacks high technology products. The method is to create a public health crisis that forces government or industry to eliminate a valuable medical or surgical technology that because of its expense and inequitable distribution makes it medically “unsustainable.” Sustainable Medicine therefore clamors to eliminate such important, life-saving and life-extending medical devices as flexible polyvinylchloride plastic tubings treated with phthalates. During the past 50 years, flexible medical tubing has revolutionized breathing machines, intravenous medicating and blood transfusing, kidney dialysis, parenteral feeding, and neonatal medicine and surgery.

Sustainable Medicine’s second class of public action attacks ideas of high technology scientific progress. The method is to revise people’s expectations for health, for medical care, and for long life “in harmony with the environment”. Sustainable Medicine devotees celebrate human death as natural, inevitable, and environmentally beneficial. Rather than a mere right to die, Sustainable Medicine inculcates a duty to die.

Sustainable Medicine is the pivot around which all other Sustainable Development revolves. Principle #1 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) states: Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. Few Americans know the meaning of Sustainable Medicine, or worse, the implications of healthy life in harmony with nature. However, an Internet Google search for Sustainable Medicine yielded (in May, 2005) a total of 5,850,000 English language references. Germans, English, Canadians, and Scandinavians under socialized medicine appreciate Sustainable Medicine for they daily deal with its rationing, long waiting times for care, low technology, and emphasis on medical caring, not medical curing.

Who decides what shall be done or not done to your body whether healthy, diseased, injured, or fatally ill? Sustainable Medicine uses identical protocols for human body ownership as Sustainable Development proposes for private land ownership.

PEEVE

PEEVE is a valuable acronym for remembering the basic concepts than animate Sustainable Medicine and Sustainable Development. PEEVE incorporates the infamous three “E”s of Sustainable Development: equity, economy, and environment. Sustainable
Medicine is guided by:

P = Precautionary Principle. If any risk, stop. If evidence is inconclusive, stop absolutely. If no proof, stop anyway. The prudent “Better safe than sorry” is perverted to “Safe sorrow for all!”

The pernicious Precautionary Principle destroys risk-benefit analysis. It hinders experiment and innovation. It impedes progress and requires reversion to simpler, more “natural” products. In land use, it requires removing “invasive species” and beneficial genetically manipulated seeds that could harm some plant, insect, or person. In medicine, the Precautionary Principle deprives courageous masses of people of necessary, life-sustaining medication and equipment because of potential harm to a few. The Precautionary Principle propels it proponents beyond intellectual cowardice to anti-technology, anti-progress, Luddite primitivism.

In both land use and medicine, the Precautionary Principle almost always is paired with its craven corollary, the Irreversability Principle. In landscape, the Irreversability Principle requires that rather than mine a precious resource that once extracted is irreversibly used, better save it than spend it on today’s life-sustaining necessities even if people will pay and legally own the resource. In bodyscape, the Precautionary Principle plus Irreversibility Principle withhold beneficial, aggressive, high technology diagnostics and medical therapies that might harm someone or something now or later.

E = Environment over all. Its “intrinsic value” is necessary for future generations on the globe.
Of what value to whom is never explained. Mystical inherent goodness, importance, and protection-worthy vulnerability of the environment make the environment trump all other needs of people and societies. It is better to force people to starve by insect-destroyed crops and to die of malaria than to use the pesticide DDT that potentially might harm birds, fish, polar bears, or human infant reflexes.

E = Equity demands no “disparities” among all people globally, among all people inter-generationally, and among all species of life and non-life: human, animal, plant, and inanimate rock.
Equity between current and future generations requires prudent use, no squandering, and abstaining from use of available assets. Equity among rich and poor requires no greedy group abusing the “carrying capacity” of the world’s natural resources. Species-equity is more important than equity among peoples. In the contest between preserving habitat for spotted owls, long-fingered salamanders, salmon, and fairy shrimp versus habitat and livelihoods of ranchers, loggers, and mineral miners, the “natural needs” and “value” power of animals are superior to those of people. The Sustainable Medicine documents quote the U.N. Biodiversity Treaty’s inscrutable rule: “Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual, and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living things are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way, and human activities should be molded along Nature’s rhythms.”

V = Visioning councils for stakeholders
Sustainable Medicine uses the same “visioning,” vision councils, vision language, vision consensus-building techniques, and vision incentives, bribes, prohibitions, protocols, and principles that facilitate the Sustainable Development land grabs of private property. Local Agenda 21 groups impose laws and regulations on localities that bypass votes of state legislatures and of the U.S. Congress. Depredations of the Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Protection Agency derive from international treaties, and work of non-governmental organizations such as ICLEI, the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives.

The vision is the cluster of global community ideas. Agenda 21 outsiders impose these concepts upon local citizens and their leaders while encouraging locals to believe they themselves initiated the ideas of the vision. Regulations and restrictions inevitably follow the implanted vision in order to implement it. The implanted vision is viewed as prophecy and revelation of future global peace. Actually, the vision is a tenacious Marxist apparition from old, surly, nihilistic Fabian socialism.
The Wye River Group On Healthcare, for instance, held its National Summit at the University Club in Washington, DC, on September 23rd 2003, attended by the elite of academic medicine, pharmacology, and government including Dr. Mark McClelland, then head of the FDA, now Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. The meeting topic was “Communities Shaping a Vision for America's 21st Century Health & Healthcare.” Experts answered such questions as: Why create a shared vision based on principles and values in America? How best connect community leaders with the vision and enable them to advance change? Is this the right time to spring the vision?

Wye River Group on Healthcare promotes the Sustainable Medicine vision for the future by working in 12 selected cities that have active Sustainable Development visioning groups: Albuquerque, NM, Chicago, IL, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Hanover, NH, Jackson, MS, Muncie, IN, Portland, OR, Raleigh/Durham, NC, Salt Lake City, UT, San Diego, CA, San Antonio, TX, and Spokane, WA. Wye River Group’s separate Foundation for American Health Care Leadership addresses “lack of healthcare infrastructure…health disparities… unique demands of an aging population, unrealistic public expectations, and appropriate use of burgeoning technology” that require “visionary leadership focused on a shared vision” for American health and healthcare.

E = Economic equity. High technology is too expensive and inequitably distributed. Whatever everyone cannot have, no one shall have.

Under Sustainable Development, the use of waterpower or fossil fuel for generating electricity in the Third World will pollute the environment as well as distract the native population from its indigenous culture in harmony with the environment. Wind-power is cleaner and more sustainable, even if not dependable nor adequate for modern progress. Likewise, under Sustainable Medicine, medical Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRIs) for diagnostics, and organ-transplant techniques for life-extending treatments are unsustainable. People must revise their expectations for long life and good health, and reject ever more sophisticated medicine and surgery dedicated to curing rather than to caring. We must reach a level sustainable plateau in medicine, says medical ethicist Dr. Daniel Callahan. As the natural world has its predictable cycles of birth and death, so people, especially Americans, must accept natural limits to life and reject interventions that unnaturally extend life at its beginnings, such as neonatal medicine, and at life’s ends. We must not expect progress, we must not waste, and we must not spend on futile care.

SUSTAINABLE MEDICINE DOCUMENTS

The original documents that enunciate Sustainable Medicine are astonishing in their theory and in their calls for implementation. Few physicians, surgeons, or lawyers have access to the materials that I first reviewed in August 2003. I obtained them directly from their source in Switzerland, the office of Dr. Jasmin von Schirnding, World Health Organization, Geneva.

Documents in English and French are not issued to the general public (and may not be “reviewed, abstracted, quoted, reproduced or translated, in part or in whole, without the prior written permission of WHO”). Some of these texts are available electronically from WHO: <http://www.who.int/wssd/resources/en/>.

[Biggs]

Here are typical titles:

1. Health in the Context of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development: Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century. <http://www.sustdev.org/explore/health_soc/ed3_pdfs/SDI3-3.pdf> von Schirnding, Y. (2001). Sustainable Development International.

2. Health and Sustainable Development: Key Health Trends. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/HSD_Plaq_02.2_Gb_def1.pdf> WHO. (2002). (WHO/HDE/HID/02.2)

3. Making Health Central to Sustainable Development: Planning the Health Agenda for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/HSD_Plaq_02.5_def1.pdf> Report of the WHO meeting: "Making Health Central to Sustainable Development", Oslo, Norway, 29 November - 1 December 2001. WHO. (2002). (WHO/HDE/HID/02.5)

4. Health in the Context of Sustainable Development. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/HSD_Plaq_02.6_def1.pdf> Background document prepared for the WHO meeting: "Making Health Central to Sustainable Development", Oslo, Norway, 29 November - 1 December 2001. WHO. (2002). (WHO/HDE/HID02.6)

5. Health and Sustainable Development. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/HSD_Plaq_02.7_def1.pdf> Summary Report. Meeting of Senior Officials and Ministers of Health, Johannesburg, South Africa, 19-22 January 2002. WHO. (2002). (WHO/HDE/HID/02.7)

6. Johannesburg Declaration on Health and Sustainable Development. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/HSD_Plaq_02.8_def1.pdf> Meeting of Senior Officials and Ministers of Health, Johannesburg, South Africa, 19-22 January 2002. WHO. (2002). (WHO/HDE/HID/02.

7. Health and Sustainable Development: Addressing the Issues and Challenges. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/HSD_Plaq_02.12.pdf> WHO Background Paper prepared for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. WHO. (2002). (WHO/HDE/HID/02.12) French version .

8. Chapter 6 of Agenda 21, on Health: <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter6.htmcan>

9. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (the plan of action stemming from the World Summit on Sustainable Development) is available at <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm>
Americans must learn Sustainable Medicine theory and implementation for it affects their lives and their property. Seven recurrent themes pervade the Sustainable Medicine documents.

First: Sustainable Medicine scholars who examine interrelationships between bodily health and the natural world conclude that poverty causes and exacerbates disease, and inequitable distribution of valuable land, minerals, and forests causes poverty. Therefore private property in land ownership must be eliminated. The global forest, for instance, is common heritage of all. Those who consume too much greedily “take” from the rest of humanity that has social rights to the arboreal ecosystem. Private taking from the collective is inequitable and immoral even if the over-consumers now own the property from which they benefit.

Second, private industry in the richest nations creates global health-endangering commercial pollution. Commercial filth causes illness and disease in people and burdens the limited “carrying capacity” of the environment.

Third, intellectual property rights in pharmaceuticals hinder Sustainable Medicine everywhere on the planet. Big pharma deprives the poorest nations of their “rights” to inexpensive necessary medicines for their sick citizens. The poor also require free condoms to combat AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Poor nations therefore should not be bound by drug patents or by copyrights. The poor require humanitarian free access to all the drugs and sex supplies they require.
Fourth, economic burdens on the poorest nations must be eliminated. Their foreign debts must be cancelled. Economic equity must be created between high income and low-income “human settlements.” Economic disparities must vanish.
Fifth, and most medically important: Sustainable Medicine must eliminate health disparities. There must be no disparities of health among peoples and no disparities of access to medicine and surgery. There shall be no health disparities country to country, so that the poor shall not have less medicine and less health than the rich. There shall be no disparities generation to generation. Those alive now must save medical resources for all generations to come. There shall be no health disparities among human species, animal species, and plant species. Health of people is central to the health of the ecosystem. Yet human health cannot exist at the expense of environmental health.

The sixth concern, therefore, is human quality of life that must be integrated with inter-species equity. The quality of life of people must not exceed the quality of life of animals, birds, fish, amphibians, trees, plants, rocks, and stones in the environment.

Finally, the United States must pay more towards sustaining Sustainable Medicine. American must accelerate payments for medicine to poor countries to reach, annually, US $22 billion by 2007.

Americans must wake up, alert and alarmed to Sustainable Medicine’s intrusions upon their liberties. Demands begin overtly for American money but conclude with covert demands for American lives. Sustainable Medicine ideas will not enhance any individual American’s life. Sustainable Medicine assuredly will promote Americans’ deaths. Agenda 21’s Sustainable Medicine powerfully attacks products of modern medical technology and ideas of modern medical progress.

Part II. ATTACKS AGAINST MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
Iron pipes and the iron lung helped patients survive polio in the 1950s. Metal tubing (and ceramic and glass tubes and pipettes) for medical devices soon were replaced by hard, rigid plastic made of polyvinylchloride (PVC). PVC pipes were dramatic improvement over metal. But because PVC originally was not flexible, PVC connectors and elbows were required to make curves and turn corners.

Few parts of the human anatomy are strictly straight or turn at 90-degree angles. Medical and surgical care that required catheters for breathing, feeding, excreting, intravenous medicating, or blood transfusion required long, painful hospital stays with patients hooked up to large, expensive machines that necessarily were constantly monitored.

But 50 years ago a brilliant softener for PVC was invented that made rigid plastic flexible. It revolutionized medicine and surgery worldwide and saved billions of lives.

Medical Plastics and Phthalates

The plastic softener called DEHP, di-ethylhexyl phthalate, suddenly created life-saving flexibility for patients who could be treated safely in hospitals, at home, at work, at a trauma site, and in an ambulance. Elegant tiny catheters now could be crafted for anatomies of premature infants to provide them the breath, food, and waste removal that enabled them to survive. Trauma patients now could survive on intravenous fluids and blood while in transit until arrival at a hospital emergency room or operating theater. Adults otherwise tied to bed or oxygen machinery now could wear nearly invisible nasal tubes connected to portable air machines and continue ambulatory, productive life.

Flexible vinyl catheters for oxygen breathing tubes, infant airways, neonatal rescue tubes, kidney dialysis, intravenous medicating, feeding tubes, and flexible plastic bags for fluids, for medication, for blood collection, blood storage, and blood transfusion have transformed medicine and surgery. Flexible plastic allows efficient outpatient care that decreases overall medical costs, diminishes need for hospital stays and medical personnel, lessens patient morbidity, and reduces patient mortality. Flexible intravenous tubings and bags improve health and well being of billions of patients worldwide. Large numbers of these patients are children.

During the half century of medical phthalate use, about 9 billion patient days of acute care use have been analyzed plus 2 billion patient days of chronic care use. These have yielded unequivocal medical benefits and no known, verifiable medical detriments. Every year more than 500 million IV bags are used in the United States to deliver blood, medication, and other essential fluids to sick and injured patients. Eighty percent of these are made of PVC treated with phthalates. Baxter International makes most of these life-saving products.

No plasticizer or plastic softener other than DEHP has ever been subjected to as much testing for toxicity and as comprehensive testing for safety. For fifty years the scientific community has known that minute amounts of phthalate leach out from PVC medical devices. But all valid scientific evidence shows that these phthalate products are harmless. They cause no adverse health effects in humans.

DEHP has been studied incessantly by the chemical industry, especially by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) Phthalate Esters Panel in the United States. Phthalates have been investigated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

When the FDA recently invited respected physicians, toxicologists, and scientists to discuss "Plasticizers: Scientific Issues in Blood Collection, Storage, and Transfusion" at a scientific forum, every expert refuted the idea that phthalates have potential negative health effects. Each participant supported the continued use of plasticized medical products.

Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop, chairman of a blue-ribbon panel of independent scientists, concluded in his written report that phthalate esters, DEHP, used in medical devices are absolutely safe for use, and "without DEHP, a wide range of lifesaving medical devices --such as blood bags, cardiac and urinary catheters and a variety of surgical instruments and gadgets -- would lack either the flexibility, transparency, or shelf life to be of much use."

Greenpeace and Health Care Without Harm, however, claim that phthalates might damage people, might be carcinogens, and might affect the testes in infant boys exposed to the chemical. The alleged harm from phthalates is based on animal studies, apparently on rodents. The studies seem also to include unpublished findings that certain baby and adult alligators exposed to phthalates developed shrivelled penises. (Henry Lamb of Freedom 21 reported in 1994 on a similar campaign against chlorine that generalized from the alligators’ penises to genitalia of Congressmen!) No human child or adult has shown adverse effects from phthalates in the half century of testing and successful use.

Yet, Greenpeace laments, "ironically, the very medical products that sustain…children's lives also contaminate their bodies with DEHP." While no reputable medical group has provided verifiable scientific proof of phthalate dangers that Greenpeace and Health Care Without Harm claim, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) classes phthalates as a probable human carcinogen. The EPA states that animal studies show that DEHP can damage the heart, liver, testes and kidneys, and interfere with sperm production. California included DEHP in its Proposition 65 list of chemicals that cause birth defects or reproductive harm.
Threats Against Baxter International
Greenpeace andHealth Care Without Harm threatened manufacturers with accusation of political insensitivity to the environment, with endangering vulnerable sick children, and with ruinous class action lawsuits for potential injuries caused by their phthalate-containing products. Baxter International, one of the world’s largest suppliers of flexible medical plastics, caved in to non-scientific but politically incendiary complaints. Other manufacturers are following Baxter’s lead to use alternatives to PVC and phthalate.

Health Care Without Harm has influenced its members to stop ordering Baxter products unless Baxter conforms to the medical activist group. Threats are powerful because Health Care Without Harm consists of several hundred medical, environmental, and social action organizations that meld Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, 41 hospitals (such as Beth Israel Medical Center in New York, New England Medical Center, hospitals of Catholic Health Care West), and such diverse assemblages as the American Nurses Association, Oncology Nursing Society, American Public Health Association, Breast Cancer Fund, and Endometriosis Association.
The Precautionary Principle of possible harm is honored despite five decades of total absence of scientific proof of actual phthalate dangers and total absence of demonstrable negative effects of phthalates. The Precautionary Principle has coerced hospitals and clinics worldwide to stop using PVC intravenous tubes and bags. To escape from political pressures, medical facilities are dumping a known, safe, and effective high technology in favor of an unknown, potentially less safe, and more expensive technology. Inevitably this will lead to deaths of those who otherwise could be saved by delivery systems for medicine and blood that use plastic IV tubing and bags.
Critically ill male infants are thought more at risk than any other patients because almost all of the brilliant multiple tubings keeping them alive are flexible PVC treated with DEHP. Which would intelligent parents choose? To save their fatally ill child’s life by breathing tubes and medicine administered by phthalate-flexible intravenous tubing? Or to not treat their child because of theoretical minuscule risk of his future wrinkled penis? Most parents joyously would welcome their son alive even with mature genitals that wrinkle like an alligator’s. Life with phthalate risk is superior to death with perfect infantile genitalia. Greenpeace and Health Care Without Harm want to eliminate all risk and therefore eradicate the vulnerable ill male child from the imperfect promised land of America.
Phthalates in Commerce Attacks against phthalates extend beyond hospitals and clinics to homes and commerce. Phthalates are a family of industrial chemicals that soften almost all poly vinyl chloride (PVC) plastics. Phthalates also are solvents in cosmetics and other consumer products. People encounter DEHP and other phthalates in beauty products, PVC toys, vinyl shower curtains, car seats, even wallpaper.

Phthalate risks are described as actual not as theoretical by a tricky use of the words can damage that implies “theoretically has potential ability to harm” and also “will harm particular individuals.” HCWC maintains that phthalates can damage the liver, kidneys, lungs and reproductive system, particularly the developing testes. HCWH does not state that the effects in animal studies are not transferred to human beings. Yet HCWH has compiled a comprehensive report about the risks associated with aggregate exposure to phthalates.

HCWC claims to work with several government agencies that already have concluded that patients are likely to be exposed to potentially unsafe amounts of DEHP while receiving medical care. Therefore HCWC praises its work with health care providers and manufacturers to replace DEHP-containing products with safer, affordable alternatives. The FDA, however, correctly worries that alternatives may not be as safe and certainly not as thoroughly studied.

The Precautionary Principle likewise could eliminate any alternative to phthalate for the substitute theoretically could be potentially as toxic as phthalate could be potentially toxic. The logical result of such illogic is the possibility of prohibiting all medical and surgical excellences that currently depend on elegant flexible plastic tubing, such as cardiac catheterization, kidney dialysis, blood transfusion, and even nutrition and hydration. The Precautionary Principle is bound to increase medical costs while it shortens human lives.

The Silent Spring Effect Attacks against plastics are brilliantly orchestrated to achieve the Silent Spring Effect. DDT, the most valuable pesticide in the world, was banned in 1972 by one book and one ruling by one man. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring falsely blamed DDT for the supposed disappearance of birds whose eggshells were said to crack from DDT, causing baby birds to die. That unscientific research led to the ruling by EPA director William Ruckelshaus that manufacture and use of DDT must stop. Ruckelshaus prohibited DDT despite 9300 pages of testimony from experts that DDT did not appreciably harm birds’ eggs and that DDT is not a human carcinogen. DDT is not mutagenic and not teratogenic, not causing birth defects, to man. (J. Gordon Edwards, J AmerPhysSurg, 03)

A half billion people--over 400 million people in Africa alone--annually die of malaria because no more effective anti-malarial than DDT has yet been discovered. Greenpeace, Health Care Without Harm, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Earth First, Rainforest Action. Beyond Pesticides, and National Resource Defense Council are among the ideological environmental organizations that forbid DDT-use in any Third World country to which they give money.

The World Bank, United States Agency of International Development (USAID), WHO, UNICEF, and the European Union withhold necessary money to any country that uses DDT. As Paul Driessen and Niger Innis demonstrate, this green activism is eco-imperialism that leads to massive black death. (Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power, Black death, <http://www.eco-imperialism.com/>).

Kenya’s Akinye Arunga explains that “Cute indigenous lifestyles simply mean indigenous poverty, indigenous malnutrition, indigenous disease, and childhood death.” The powerful video, “Voices from Africa: Biotechnology and the subsistence farmer” (presented by Cyril Boynes, Congress of Racial Equality director of international programs at the biotechnology conference in the United Nations General Assembly hall on January 18, 2005) revealed that the same ideology that helped ban DDT is banning the lives of Africans and other subsistence societies worldwide.

(cboynes@core-online.org <mailto:cboynes@core-online.org>)

Radical environmental activists prevent poor Africans from acquiring modern farming methods, adequate electricity, and pesticides to control diseases such as malaria. As Dr. Driessen proves, the anti-biotechnology crusade effectively creates natural population control by depriving the Third World of food and of life. While some dangerous eco-activists are guilty merely of sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity, others practice deliberate eco-manslaughter.

The Silent Spring method that worked to obliterate DDT has been used to attack chlorine and other valuable chemicals that preserve human health. The seven-part strategy (a variation on Henry Lamb’s four-part analysis) is dazzlingly effective, melding pseudo-science, emotion, and political action to protect the vulnerable young. For DDT the critical imperiled creatures were baby birds. For phthalates, the endangered creatures are baby boys.

The seven steps usually follow this pattern:

(1) create a "scientific" study that predicts a public health disaster

(2) release the study to the media before scientists can review it

(3) generate an intense emotional public reaction

(4) develop a government-enforced solution

(5) intimidate Congress into passing it into law

(6) coerce manufacturers to stop making the product

(7) bully users to replace it or obliterate it
Health Care Without Harm and public health advocates from Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a faith-based North American coalition, are trying to Silent Spring all valuable plastics and eliminate them from hospitals.
Coincidentally they intend to Silent Spring plastics from homes, businesses, and world commerce.

Likewise committed to eliminating phthalates is Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR). PSR started in Boston in 1961 and continues as a group of medical practitioners who are anti-war, anti-nuclear, anti-self-defense, and anti-dangerous chemicals, especially “persistent organic pollutants”. Their aim is to end the manufacture and use of phthalates as one of the “the 12 worst toxic chemicals poisoning the earth and its inhabitants.” PSR is accustomed to successful social action, having claimed long ago that children take into their bodies a by-product of nuclear weapons testing, strontium-90. PSR clamored for the Limited Test Ban Treaty and in 1963 the end of U.S. atmospheric testing of nuclear weaponry, for which it shared the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) does not limits its actions to speeches, essays, and scientific meetings. PCRM has close ties to the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), both of which are considered domestic terrorist organizations because of their arson and physical attacks against property. Jerry Vlasek, M.D., of Los Angeles, CA., sometimes speaks for ALF. In May, 2005, ALF continued its attacks on the families of pharmaceutical executives, such as those associated with Forest Laboratories in Long Island, NY, accusing them of being “puppy killers” because of their connection with Huntingdon Life Sciences in Britain that tests medicines and household products on animals.

Members of PCRM and PSR are members of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) that supports the elimination of putatively toxic chemicals such as phthalates. Founded in 1990, and located in Geneva, Switzerland, ISDE is a global non-governmental organization (NGO) uniting 10,000 medical doctors, scientists, and health professionals who promote ideas on the environment, health, and toxic chemicals. Their audiences are local medical communities, government policy-makers, corporations, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations.

Healing Without Harm is the mantra of the Teleosis Institute (meaning self-realization). These health care professionals “in service of the global environment” “partner” with others for social and environmental change and who share their vision for Ecologically Sustainable Medicine (ESM). Run by a Berkeley, CA, chiropractor and homeopath, Teleosis aims for sustainable, cost effective, resource-preserving, widely available medical practices that meet “environmental challenges across the globe” and provide for “current and future needs of the global population.” Related is the visionary magazine called Symbiosis, Journal of Ecologically Sustainable Medicine.

Anti-phthalate scientists seem dedicated more to political ideology than to scientific method, more to passion for global governance than to American sovereignty, more to peace and passivity than to triumph over any enemy national, biological, or chemical.

Green power-mongers muster sanctimonious smugness to Silent Spring DDT for use in Africa because it might harm Arctic polar bears, baby birds, and young plants. The true record, however, is glisteningly clear. When South Africa ignored green ideas and used DDT, it slashed malaria by 80% in 18 months and by 93% in three years. That is how America long ago became malaria-free.

Ecuador risked green ire, used DDT, and reduced malaria incidence by 60%. (Driessen) Not far away, however, Bolivia banned DDT and malaria increased 80%. The great triumph of the anti-DDT “Roll Back Malaria” campaign, according to a recent WHO-UNICEF report, is that since inception of its work in 1998, global malaria disease and death rates increased only by 10%. Recall that half a billion African people die annually because of deprivation of DDT in their environment.

Physicians, scientists, and environmentalists who insist on Silent Springing DDT, phthalates, and other discoveries, inventions, and technologies that save human lives, but possibly could harm animals and plants, arrogantly consider all strands in the great web of life equal. Scientists, physicians, and ideologues committed to the biodiversity web ignore the 400 million radiant black human threads that each year malaria cuts short in Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, and other parts of Africa.

If those malaria-killed half billion people had not died but instead lived, thrived, and reproduced, the population of the globe would have vastly increased. Green power seems to favor black death.

Green power also favors white death. Eco-imperialists pay for biodiversity at high human cost. When eco-imperialists attack the products of medical progress in the chemicals and technology that affirm and extend human life, the deaths they cause are involuntary. People who die from lack of DDT or lack of phthalate-softened breathing tubes do not choose to exchange their lives to enable a polar bear or a vernal pool or a spotted owl to live. But when eco-imperialists attack the ideas of medical progress that affirm and extend human life, they expect people voluntarily to die because they accept a duty to die. That is the triumph of irrational altruism, the voluntary sacrifice of self. Altruism violates reason, individualism, language, capitalism, private property, human dignity, and human integrity.
Click here to read Part III <http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/article.php?sid=432>:

Attack Against Ideas of Medical Progress
March 18, 2007, 21:40:18 GMT

Sustainable Medicine + Sustainable Development = Duty to Die (Parts I & II)
http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/article.php?sid=425
Content © 2003 - 2006 Freedom 21 Santa Cruz <http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/>, All Rights Reserved.

Agenda 21 is from the UN's Rio de Jeneiro conference in 1992. It's the global contract that binds governments around the world to the UN plan for changing the ways we live, eat, earn, learn and communicate... all under the noble banner of "saving the earth." Via mind control, a dumbed down educational system to the lowest common denominator, the process of Hegelian Dialectics, and incessant media propaganda, people are being conditioned to accept its regulations which will severely limit the use of water, electricity, transportation... and even deny human access to our wilderness areas.

The 1992 Rio event was billed as the agenda for the 21st Century, thus the name "Agenda 21"... and it gathered together 179-nations. The event was called the "UN Conference On Environment And Development." Among other things, it called for a Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) of the state of the planet.

It was prepared by the UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme. This GBA armed UN leaders with the "information" and "science" they needed, in order to VALIDATE their Global Management System (GMS). Its doomsday predictions were DESIGNED to excuse radical population reduction, oppressive lifestyle regulations, and a coercive return to earth-centered religions as the basis for environmental values and self-sustaining human settlements - HABITATS FOR HUMANITY.

Here's an excellent resource of info if you want to know more:
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles.html#anchor973466 <http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles.html>
BTW, if you look around your local area, you will find an NGO (non-governmental organization) quietly working like so many termites in a wood foundation, undermining your representative form of government, promoting a "Community Plan." These community ["COMMUNE" for the collective!] plans are derived from Agenda 21 and are also covered in the materials referenced at the above website.

Here is one more excellent website that exposes this communistic plan to "DIRECT AND CONTROL ALL HUMAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES" which is the UN's stated goal: <http://sovereignty.freedom.org/>

[Brocke]

Ok, this may sound sophomoric to most of us on this forum.
We all know that Carbon Dioxide is a "life" gas not a deadly killer.

I found this article while looking for references on the discovery of CO2 and it's relationship to plants and it occurred to me that I should create a thread where people can post ANY references and links that have accurate information about Carbon Dioxide.

[Brocke]

Carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide was the first gas to be distinguished from ordinary air, perhaps because it is so intimately connected with the cycles of plant and animal life. When we breathe air or when we burn wood and other fuels, carbon dioxide is released; when plants store energy in the form of food, they use up carbon dioxide. Early scientists were able to observe the effects of carbon dioxide long before they knew exactly what it was.

Around 1630, Flemish scientist Jan van Helmont discovered that certain vapors differed from air, which was then thought to be a single substance or element. Van Helmont coined the term gas to describe these vapors and collected the gas given off by burning wood, calling it gas sylvestre. Today we know this gas to be carbon dioxide, and van Helmont is credited with its discovery. He also recognized that carbon dioxide was produced by the fermentation of wine and from other natural processes. Before long, other scientists began to notice similarities between the processes of breathing (respiration) and burning (combustion), both of which use up and give off carbon dioxide. For example, a candle flame will eventually be extinguished when enclosed in a jar with a limited supply of air, as will the life of a bird or small animal.

Then in 1756, Joseph Black proved that carbon dioxide, which he called fixed air, is present in the atmosphere and that it combines with other chemicals to form new compounds. Black also identified carbon dioxide in exhaled breath, determined that the gas is heavier than air, and characterized its chemical behavior as that of a weak acid. The pioneering work of van Helmont and Black soon led to the discovery of other gases by Henry Cavendish, Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier, Carl Wilhelm Scheele, and other chemists. As a result, scientists began to realize that gases must be weighed and accounted for in the analysis of chemical compounds, just like solids and liquids.

The first practical use for carbon dioxide was invented by Joseph Priestley, an English chemist, in the mid 1700s. Priestley had duplicated Black's experiments using a gas produced by fermenting grain and showed that it had the same properties as Black's fixed air, or carbon dioxide. When he dissolved the gas in water, he found that it created a refreshing drink with a slightly tart flavor. This was the first artificially carbonated water, known as soda water or seltzer. Carbon dioxide is still used today to make colas and other soft drinks. In addition to supplying bubbles and zest, the gas acts as a preservative.

The early study of carbon dioxide also gave rise to the expression to be a guinea pig, meaning to subject oneself to an experiment. In 1783, French physicist Pierre Laplace used a guinea pig to demonstrate quantitatively that oxygen from the air is used to burn carbon stored in the body and produce carbon dioxide in exhaled breath. Around the same time, chemists began drawing the connection between carbon dioxide and plant life. Like animals, plants breathe, using up oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. But plants also have the unique ability to store energy in the form of carbohydrates, our primary source of food. This energy-storing process, called photosynthesis, is essentially the reverse of respiration. It uses up carbon dioxide and releases oxygen in a complex series of reactions that also require sunlight and chlorophyll (the green substance that gives plants their color). In the 1770s, Dutch physiologist Jan Ingen Housz established the principles of photosynthesis, which helped explain the age-old superstition that plants purify air during the day and poison it at night.

Since these early discoveries, chemists have learned much more about carbon dioxide. English chemist John Dalton guessed in 1803 that the molecule contains one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms (CO2); this was later proved to be true. The decay of all organic materials produces carbon dioxide very slowly, and the earth's atmosphere contains a small amount of the gas (about 0.033%). Spectroscopic analysis has shown that in our solar system, the planets of Venus and Mars have atmospheres very rich in carbon dioxide. The gas also exists in ocean water, where it plays a vital role in marine plant photosynthesis.

In modern life, carbon dioxide has many practical applications. For example, fire extinguishers use CO2 to control electrical and oil fires, which cannot be put out with water. Because carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it spreads into a blanket and smothers the flames. Carbon dioxide is also a very effective refrigerant. In its solid form, known as dry ice, it is used to chill perishable food during transport. Many industrial processes are also cooled by carbon dioxide, which allows faster production rates. For these commercial purposes, carbon dioxide can be obtained from either natural gas wells, fermentation of organic material, or combustion of fossil fuels.

Recently, carbon dioxide has received negative attention as a greenhouse effect gas. When it accumulates in the upper atmosphere, it traps the earth's heat, which could eventually cause global warming. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800s, factories and power plants have significantly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning coal and other fossil fuels. This effect was first predicted by Svante August Arrhenius, a Swedish physicist, in the 1880s. Then in 1938, British physicist G. S. Callendar suggested that higher CO2 levels had caused the warmer temperatures observed in America and Europe since Arrhenius's day. Modern scientists have confirmed these views and identified other causes of increasing carbon dioxide levels, such as the clearing of the world's forests. Because trees extract CO2 from the air, their depletion has contributed to upsetting the delicate balance of gases in the atmosphere.

In very rare circumstances, carbon dioxide can endanger life. In 1986, a huge cloud of the gas exploded from Lake Nyos, a volcanic lake in northwestern Cameroon, and quickly suffocated more than 1,700 people and 8,000 animals. Scientists have attempted to control this phenomenon by slowly pumping the gas up from the bottom of the lake.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/1209/Carbon-Dioxide.html