Investment and other financial matters

The Moral High Ground

The Moral High Ground: The Left’s "morally superior" policies kill

millions and impoverish billions


Soon after I published an article questioning the global-warming

orthodoxy, the world’s foremost hypocrite, Al Gore, informed anyone

who still listens to him that my position is akin to racism. The wise

course of action would be to ignore the rants of a man who desperately

needs the world to remain fearful of carbon, the element on which all

life on earth is based. If that fear were to vanish, how would he

continue to rake in the millions needed for the purchase of his next

beach house?

But enough is enough. Why should I sit quietly and let myself be

branded a racist? In fact, will someone please explain how the Left is

always assumed to have the moral high ground in these kinds of

debates? I am particularly curious about this, as leftist policies

continue to destroy the lives of tens of millions in this country and

billions worldwide.

Let’s go through just a small part of the evidence.

The Left has fought the spread of genetically modified (GM) foods with

every weapon in its arsenal. Leftists did this in the name of

combatting a long list of "potential risks" that never materialized.

They have been permitted to overlook the fact that their assaults on

GM food were not cost free. For instance, they have greatly delayed

and in some places stopped cold the use of rice modified to increase

vitamin A content. For the Left this is cause for celebration. In

fact, widespread use of this "golden rice" would have prevented a

half-million cases of child blindness a year. So the next time someone

talks to you about the evils of genetically modified foods, remind him

of the millions of poor children this crusade has condemned to a

lifetime of blindness. How do folks prepared to allow millions to

needlessly go blind still command the respect of any truly moral


However, even looking the other way as children go blind pales in

comparison to the needless starving of millions that has occurred

because anti-GM-food groups have frightened and bullied the people and

governments of Africa into forbidding the use of GM seeds. Such seeds,

modified to resist the effects of drought and disease, would make

Africa self-sufficient in foodstuffs. But for most African farmers

they remain unavailable because of the successful efforts of American

and European anti-GM-food groups. Even though every American consumes

GM foods on an almost daily basis, with no ill effects, they remain

off limits to those most in need.

There is no reason the Somali child pictured below needs to be hungry

except for the fact that some groups are working overtime to prevent

his country from growing the food needed to feed him. What do you call

people who are willing to let millions starve to death rather than let

them grow food that scientists long ago proved safe?Why the anti-GM

groups are not condemned for crimes against humanity escapes me. For

that matter, as these groups have made it their life mission to starve

poor Africans, Asians, and other peoples of color, how come they have

never been branded as racists?

And malnutrition is not the only problem afflicting Africa and other

poor regions of the world. Among the greatest scourges is malaria,

which infects 250 million and kills 1 million every year. In fact, in

Africa, one in every five childhood deaths is a result of malaria. If

you are a reader of average speed, then consider that ten to twelve

children will have died from malaria between the time you started this

article and the time you finish it. None of this is necessary. Malaria

was vanquished in the United States and Europe through the copious use

of DDT. But this blessing has been denied poor African nations because

Rachel Carson in her 1962 book Silent Spring blamed DDT for killing

eagles and other birds.

Fifty years later Carson’s discredited work remains a rallying cry for

environmentalists who tirelessly work to ensure that poor nations do

not have access to DDT, favoring instead a cocktail of methods that

have been proven ineffective. Interestingly, I was once accosted by an

environmental zealot over that last statement. He wanted to know what

proof I had that other methods were ineffective. I pointed out the

continuing deaths of a million people and asked how long he had been

involved in the environmental movement. When he told me he had been

doing this for a dozen years I casually mentioned that during his

activist years he had worked for a movement responsible for killing

two times as many persons as perished in the Holocaust, and that was

just from malaria-related deaths alone. Yet he thought, and probably

still thinks, that he occupies the moral high ground.

In truth, almost all the harmful effects attributed to DDT have been

proven not to exist. Moreover, the benefits of DDT use can be achieved

using a fraction of the quantity used to eradicate malaria in the

United States. Just what do leftists have against blacks, particularly

blacks in Africa, that causes them to push policies that sicken and

kill them by the tens of millions? And why do they get to claim they

sing with the angels as they preside over this slaughter of innocents?

Let’s move on a bit. That most stupendous of hypocrites, Al Gore

again, uses more electricity in a week than 28 million poor Ugandans

use in a year. Still he gets to brand me a racist for doubting his

unsupported claims about global warming. The simple fact of the matter

is that alternative sources of energy are inefficient, unreliable, and

very expensive. If poor countries are forced to adopt alternative

energy sources over cheap carbon-based energy, then there is no

feasible scenario in which developing nations will be able to afford

even a fraction of the energy required to escape poverty. As the

Ugandan Fiona Kobusingye points out in a recent article:

Not having electricity means millions of Africans don’t have

refrigerators to preserve food and medicine. Outside of wealthy parts

of our big cities, people don’t have lights, computers, modern

hospitals and schools, air conditioning – or offices, factories, and

shops to make things and create good jobs. Not having electricity also

means disease and death. It means millions die from lung infections,

because they have to cook and heat with open fires; from intestinal

diseases caused by spoiled food and unsafe drinking water; from

malaria, TB, cholera, measles, and other diseases that we could

prevent or treat if we had proper medical facilities.

She goes on to say, "Telling Africans they can’t have electricity and

economic development – except what can be produced with some wind

turbines or little solar panels – is immoral. It is a crime against

humanity." And she concludes, "We need to stop listening to

global-warming witch doctors, who get rich telling us to keep living

‘indigenous,’ impoverished lives."

Yet I am the one Al Gore brands as a racist.

But the damage the warmists are doing or hope to do does not end

there. To save a planet that stopped warming in 1998, they want the

United States and other industrial countries to reduce carbon output

by 80 percent by 2050 (many are shooting for 2020), relative to a 1990

baseline. Let’s assume we multiply our wasteful spending on solar and

wind power tenfold. If we do, then on particularly sunny and windy

days we may eventually get 25 percent of our energy from those

sources. That leaves us short about half the energy we need to support

current GDP levels. As studies demonstrate that every 1 percent

reduction in power causes a 0.7 percent reduction in GDP, I wonder how

the warmists plan to employ the additional 25 million Americans thrown

out of work.

Moreover, in the world’s emerging economies each 1 percent loss of GDP

causes almost 2,500 premature deaths per 100,000 population. So, if

the warmists get their way, they would kill off about 50 million

persons a year on their way to a 2050 nirvana. One could plausibly

claim that as soon as the pain became apparent, politicians would

immediately reverse course before more damage was done. Such a belief

would be comforting if we were not witnessing the destruction of huge

amounts of food in order to turn it into inefficient and costly

energy. One would think that global food riots and millions of

starving people would cause a rethinking of our priorities. But this

year, American farmers will grow more corn for ethanol than for food.

After all, why should the empty bellies of countless children get in

the way of saving the planet from warmist fantasies? Look again at

that picture of a starving black child and tell me whose policies are


How about something closer to home? Data released last week show that

America’s jobless rate among black teenagers was 46.5 percent, and the

overall rate of black joblessness is double that of the white

population. Why? One needs to look no further than liberal policies

implemented in our major cities, which have destroyed the black family

unit, discouraged business investment, and subsidized the worst

education system in the developed world. In fact, if a foreign power

tried to force our education system on inner cities, we would send in

the Marines to stop it.

Instead, we let leftist-dominated teachers’ unions run an education

system that ensures half of the students trapped in it will be

unemployable upon graduation. When these unions are called to account,

they attack the critics as wanting to hurt the children. For how much

longer will unions be allowed to claim they are "all about the

children," while in fact they are wrecking those children’s futures

and condemning many of them to spend the rest of their lives in

poverty? And why am I

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (2)

2 Responses to “The Moral High Ground”

  1. admin says:

    BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:

    >[Aussie coal lobby spin]

    From the voluminous "DISASTERS WAITING TO HAPPEN" basket:

    Australia to broach radical global warming solutions

    Radical solutions to climate change include spraying aerosols into the

    atmosphere to increase the reflectiveness of clouds.

    Graham Readfearn

    The Sydney Morning Herald

    September 9, 2011 – 7:42AM

    Clouds could be made more reflective and oceans fertilised to increase carbon

    dioxide absorption under ideas to be discussed at Australia’s 1st high-level

    climate engineering conference later this month.

    International interest in climate engineering – also known as geoengineering -

    is increasing as efforts to curb the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases

    continue to falter.

    Scientists said the event was an important step for Australia into the

    controversial geoengineering debate but expressed grave concerns some proposed

    technologies could have dangerous and far-reaching side effects.

    The 2-day science symposium, starting in Canberra on September 26, is being

    hosted by the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Academy of

    Technological Sciences and Engineering.

    Among the more controversial ideas being discussed is the injection of sulphur

    particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and slow global warming.

    Other technologies include fertilising oceans to increase uptake of carbon

    dioxide and spraying aerosols into the atmosphere to increase the

    reflectiveness of clouds.

    But the meeting will also cover relatively benign ways to pull greenhouse

    gases from the atmosphere, including planting more trees and using

    climate-friendly agricultural techniques.

    Speaker at the event Graeme Pearman, a respected climate scientist and former

    CSIRO chief of atmospheric research, told it was a "very

    significant 1st step".

    "It needs to be made clear that no one really wants to do this," Dr Pearman said


    "Some of the options are potentially dangerous, but we need to be prepared to

    act if we have to and we need to be assured that others will not act

    imprudently or in regional interest alone.

    "It is my view we can only be assured of this by having these discussions out

    in the open."

    Global emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels hit an all-time

    high last year, according to the International Energy Agency.

    Dr Pearman said the meeting was timely given slow global action to cut

    emissions and the observed changes in the climate. Also, private companies

    were already being set-up to "capitalise" on some geoengineering technologies.

    In early 2009, German scientists dropped 6 tonnes of dissolved iron into

    the SW Atlantic to fertilise a 300 square km area.  But scientists

    reported only a "modest" amount of CO2 had been soaked up.

    Later this year, a team of academics in Britain are to test equipment that

    could spray particles 20 km up into the atmosphere using a hose tethered to a ba


    Geoengineering has gained prominence since Britain’s Royal Society published a

    report in 2009 calling for more research into the area.

    The influential UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will also

    assess geoengineering science in several chapters of its next assessment

    report, due out in 2014. The IPCC reports inform government policy across the gl


    An international conference of 165 international scientists, including Dr

    Pearman, was also held in Asilomar in California last March and was

    part-funded by the Victorian Government.

    The final report from the conference included a set of 5 principles to

    promote "responsible conduct of research on climate engineering".

    Last Nov the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, to which Australia is a

    signatory, called a global moratorium on any geoengineering experiments that

    could affect biodiversity, but its effectiveness has been questioned.

    Roger Gifford, chair of the AAS National Committee for Earth System Science,

    who will open the event, said Australia needed to be part of any global

    decisions, especially on how geoengineering was governed.

    "Whether it is to squash some of these proposals or encourage certain aspects,

    Australia needs to be involved in the research and the global

    decision-making," he said.

    Dr Gifford said it was "pretty much inevitable" that the globe would warm by 2

    degrees above their pre-industrial levels.

    "Everyone is aware that fiddling with the global energy balance directly could

    carry as many risks and potential unknowns as humanity’s current collective

    fiddling with the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere has," he said.

    In relation to geoengineering measures to block the sun’s rays, Dr Gifford

    said: "Almost everyone in climate science is saying that if it comes to this

    then the world really is in a desperate shape climatically."

    Also invited to speak at the Canberra meeting is author Clive Hamilton,

    professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University, who is a strong critic

    of the principles and motivations behind many geoengineering technologies.

    He fears some policy makers might see embracing geoengineering as an

    alternative to switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

    "Anyone who has observed the politics of climate change knows that governments

    are keen to find alternatives to imposing deep emissions cuts," said Professor

    Hamilton, who is writing a book on geoengineering.

    "If geoengineering appears to be an alternative to mitigation then governments

    will grab it if they can."

    The Canberra conference, which costs $240 to attend, aims to "develop a

    southern hemisphere perspective" on geoengineering.

    David Karoly, a leading atmospheric scientist at the University of Melbourne,

    said there was a perception the southern ocean was a preferred region to carry

    out ocean fertilization. This could have serious implications for marine

    biodiversity in the region, he said.

    Professor Karoly warned cloud-whitening technologies and pumping sulphur

    particles high into the atmosphere could have global and regional impacts by

    changing rainfall patterns and damaging the ozone layer.

    Falling sulphur particles and depleted ozone had additional human health

    impacts, he said.

    MYREF: 20110909123003 msg2011090915715

    [233 more news items]

    [Call me kook:]

    >A scientist cites a data point that is consistent with a trend and

    >says "This data is consistent with the trend; no surprise".

    >A kook cites a data point inconsistent with the trend and says "Surprise!

    >The trend is Wrong Wrong Wrong!".

    Sorry but 1917 invalidates the trend.

      — BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 7 Feb 2011 13:29 +1100

  2. admin says:

    BONZO@27-32-240-172 [numerous nyms] wrote:

    >[Aussie coal lobby spin]

    Prospect of Malaria Vaccine

    Rob Stein,

    The Washington Post
    Oct 17 2011

    For the 1st time, an experimental vaccine has been shown to safely protect

    large numbers of children against malaria, one of the world’s most devastating

    scourges and one that has long evaded medicine’s most potent weapons.

    An eagerly awaited analysis of data being collected on more than 15,000

    newborns and babies in 7 African countries found that the vaccine cut the risk

    of being infected with the malaria parasite by about 1/2 and reduced the

    chances of getting the most serious, life-threatening form of the disease by

    more than a third.

    Controlling malaria has long been a top goal of international public-health

    authorities. Caused by parasites transmitted by infected mosquitoes, malaria

    annually sickens more than 200 mn people and kills nearly 800,000, mostly

    children in Africa. Because children are the most vulnerable to the disease,

    efforts to develop a vaccine have focused on them.

    While far less protective than vaccines used against other diseases, the

    results of the test vaccine were hailed as a major advance.

    "This is remarkable when you consider that there has never been a successful

    vaccine against a human parasite," Tsiri Agbenyega of the Komfo-Anokye

    Hospital in Ghana, who is leading the study, told reporters during a briefing

    before the results were made public. "This potentially translates into tens of

    millions of cases of malaria in children being averted."

    Beyond causing disease and deaths, malaria saps many developing nations’

    economies, accounting for 40% of medical costs, up to 1/2 of all

    hospitalizations and 60% of all visits to health clinics. Although it has

    largely been eliminated from most developed parts of the world, 1/2 of the

    world’s population live in areas where malaria remains endemic. It is the 5th

    leading cause of death from an infectious disease worldwide, the second

    leading cause of death in Africa and the leading cause of death in Africa

    among children younger than 5.

    Bed nets treated with insecticide have reduced infections, but efforts to

    produce an effective malaria vaccine for children and adults have been

    repeatedly stymied. It is much more difficult to produce a vaccine against a

    parasite than against a virus, and the malaria parasite morphs its form at

    various stages in an infected person’s body.

    Several experimental vaccines are being developed, but the one tested in the

    study is the most promising and by far the furthest along in development.

    The vaccine’s developers hope to use the results of the study to win

    regulatory approval for the vaccine and make it available as soon as

    2015. GlaxoSmithKline, which makes the vaccine, has pledged to sell it at an

    affordable price, charging just 5% above cost, and to work with suppliers to

    reduce the cost; to use any profit to develop a second-generation malaria

    vaccine; and to conduct research on other diseases that plague the developing wo


    "Our intention is to supply this vaccine at the lowest cost possible," said

    Glaxo’s chief executive, Andrew Witty. "We have no intention of making a

    profit here."

    MYREF: 20111020003001 msg2011102015574

    [248 more news items]

    [Before the flood:]

    The recent Murray Darling run-off since the floods would have provided
    enought irrigation water to last at least 15 years.

    Instead it has all run out to sea!

    Crazy anti-dam greenies!

     – "BONZO"@ [daily nymshifter], 12 Nov 2010 14:05 +1100