Charts and stuff on CO2 levels

Hearing figures and statistics on CO2 levels and the Kyoto protocol can make it hard to process the information. I therefore had a look around the web for some charts and graphs that would make it easier for me to understand. Here's a few that I think help:

First, here's the "per capita" chart for greenhouse gases that pro-Kyoto people like to refer to:


Yes, yes, Australia looks bad on a per capita basis. However, the next chart shows some total figures:

Where does Australia fit in? It's kind of confusing because of the different ways different charts are counting carbon, but the Australian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory says:

Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors totalled 564.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO₂-e) in 2004 under the accounting provisions applying to Australia’s 108% emissions target.

That figure sounds about right, according to the next chart too. Anyway, the USA and Europe are pretty much on top. However, here's the really worrying thing (assuming you think CO2 is a worry):

Just look at that growth curb for China. It hits US levels in a little over 10 years time, and then keeps climbing. I am not sure if this is on a "do nothing" basis or not. However, even on current "do something" ideas, I doubt it's going to have much effect within 10 years.

China is, of course, amongst the many countries which Kyoto doesn't currently cover, as shown clearly shown here:




Finally, projections for CO2 increase over the next 100 years or so (on a "business as usual" basis):


Kind of a steep curve, hey.

The lesson I take from this is: the really, really serious issue is preventing China's huge climb, as well as reducing the US. As the US is already economically advanced, I guess there is greater grounds for optimism that it can develop and afford the technological fixes which may help. But there will be a huge need to get those technologies into China fast. How the international community can help China in this process is not a topic I can say I have heard a lot about.

More about Islam and women

While I am talking about the Imam Hilali uproar, fierce Islam critic Robert Spencer's Frontpage article about this is worth reading. While most people probably know of the difficulty that rape victims in strict Sharia law countries have in getting the rapist convicted (most rapes not occurring within sight of 4 male witnesses), the extent of the related problem of the complainant being at risk of going to jail for adultery surprised me:

What’s more, in traditional Islamic law rape cannot be established except by the testimony of four male witnesses who saw the act, as stipulated by Qur’an 24:4 and 24:13. Consequently, it is even today virtually impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. Unscrupulous men can commit rape with impunity: as long as they deny the charge and there are no witnesses, they get off scot-free, because the victim’s account is inadmissible. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery. That accounts for the grim fact that as many as seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are, in fact, behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape.^[i] Several high-profile cases in Nigeria recently have also revolved around rape accusations being turned around by Islamic authorities into charges of fornication, resulting in death sentences that were only modified after international pressure.^[ii]

Attempt at humour ends in tears

A Times of India blogger posted about the Imam Hilali "cat meat" issue in terms clearly meant not to be taken entirely seriously:

Clearly, the woman by not wearing a burkha is not commiting a crime. She is merely exposing herself to the weaker sex (men) who in their weakness will rape her which indeed is a crime. Yes it is so even per the Quran.

Sooooo, logic would dictate that all muslim men wear a burkha so that they cannot see anything and cannot derobe easily to rape. Perhaps all muslim men should be made to wear some form of a chastity belt the key to which is held by their mother until they are married and their wives after that. This way the “weaker” sex, i.e., the male, will not be able to lose to tempation and commit a crime.

After all crime prevention is about keeping criminals at bay not the innocent.

Now I would like to see some Imam make that law :-)

Reader reaction, which unfortunately seems not to be available, was clearly not good, as the blogger makes clear in his follow up posts:

This post and many others on O3 reveal expose one thing. The scum in our society. My post may be interpretted as discriminatory but if you read it carefully it is not. On reading the comments to my post I am shocked at some posts such as those by this person calling him or her self as “human“. My dog is capable of higher levels of inteligence.

And the next day:

Let me set the record straight on this issue. I don't give a rats ass as to what someone is wearing. My post is not against burkhas. It is against idiotic statements and practices that have no place in todays society. And these practices are not limited to Islamic practices. What do I mean by that? Quite simple. No one should dictate what anyone wears, sings, believes, eats, drinks etc.

If you are that averse to freedom then perhaps you need to seek out a nation that will deprive you of your freedom and go live there. This goes out to people of all religion, caste, creed, color, shape, size, whatever......

Obviously, it is challenging to mix humour and commentary on Islam in India.

My "Wallace" post

When I was a kiddie, there seemed to be only about 5 different fresh cheeses commonly available in Brisbane supermarkets. Mostly cheddar. And then there was the rubbery cheese-like foil wrapped bricks of Kraft processed cheese, which seemed to have a shelf life of 5 years or more. Is it still available? I haven't gone looking...

Cheese varieties available grew over the 1970's, and seemed to explode in the 1980's. Now, every self respecting foodie area of Australia has its own small cheese factory, even in South East Queensland.

Here are two I have been to in the last 12 months, one at Mount Tambourine (not far from the Gold Coast) and the other at Maleny (not far from the Sunshine Coast). These cooler high areas are both well worth visiting for their scenery anyway, and they also have several competent wineries, although more often than not these are just outlets for wine made in the Stanthorpe region. There is also a nice goats cheese made by a Frenchman near Gympie that is available at the "farmer's markets" held at various locations around Brisbane.

Both of these small cheese factories made excellent cheeses and deserve success. In fact, the art of competent cheese making seems something that Queenslanders found a lot easier to master than making competent wine. (There are good Queensland wines now, though.)

The Witches Chase factory even runs 2 day cheese making classes, for those truly obsessed with cheese, I suppose. Their website is, however, one of the worst commercial ones I have ever seen.

Of course, true cheese connoisseurs will go on about how ridiculous it is that Australia will not allow cheese to be made from unpasteurised milk. (I have never tasted it so don't know what I might be missing.) They will also watch the cable TV show "Cheese Slices", which is truly European cheese pornography. (Well, I have seen an episode or two and have to admit to enjoying it.)

There is something deeply satisfying about melted cheese on toast when you are really hungry. I feel like some now.

Unnecessary research

Condom woes lead to erection 'deflation' is the heading on this New Scientist story. Enough said...

Two articles on Iraq

Christopher Hitchens still isn't showing any signs of jumping ship on the whole Iraq issue. From his latest Slate article:

I am glad that all previous demands for withdrawal or disengagement from Iraq were unheeded, because otherwise we would not be able to celebrate the arrest and trial of Saddam Hussein; the removal from the planet of his two sadistic kids and putative successors; the certified disarmament of a former WMD- and gangster-sponsoring rogue state; the recuperation of the marshes and their ecology and society; the introduction of a convertible currency; the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan (currently advertising for investors and tourists on American television); the killing of al-Qaida's most dangerous and wicked leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and many of his associates; the opening of dozens of newspapers and radio and TV stations; the holding of elections for an assembly and to approve a constitution; and the introduction of the idea of federal democracy as the only solution for Iraq short of outright partition and/or civil war. If this cause is now to be considered defeated, by the sheer staggering persistence in murder and sabotage of the clerico-fascist forces and the sectarian militias, then it will always count as a noble one.

Meanwhile, Juan Cole, who Hitchens has ripped into before, writes what seems to be an unobjectional piece in Salon, explaining why the partitioning of Iraq is not really an option:

But aside from the selfish interests of all the political actors inside and outside Iraq, as a practical policy, partitioning Iraq is too risky. It would probably not reduce ethnic infighting. It might produce more. The mini-states that emerge from a partition will have plenty of reason to fight wars with one another, as India did with Pakistan in the 1940s and has done virtually ever since. Worse, it is likely that if the Sunni Arab mini-state commits an atrocity against the Shiites, it might well bring in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. They in turn would be targeted by Saudi and Jordanian jihadi volunteers.

A break-up of Iraq might not stop at Iraq’s borders. The Sunni Arabs could be picked up by Syria, thus greatly increasing Syria’s fighting power. Or they could become a revolutionary force in Jordan. A wholesale renegotiation of national borders may ensue, according to some thinkers. Such profound changes in such a volatile part of the world cannot be depended on to occur without bloodshed.

Both articles are worth reading in full.

The crime fighting internet and further thoughts. (An adult post.)

This story in Slate is fascinating.

Turns out that one serious study on crime statistics indicates that internet access reduces the number of rapes (although mainly for teenage perpetrators).

So, all that lack of "mastery of domain" that the internet encourages in teenagers has at least one upside.

One downside, I am sure I have read somewhere in the past, is that widespread familiarity with the explicit porn around today had led many people - mainly men I guess - into having unrealistic expectations of what a sexual partner should be happy to try. This can have serious effects on what otherwise might have been a good relationship.

In fact, the whole issue of community attitudes to what is "acceptable" in terms of everyday sexual practices is pretty interesting, in that it seems to me underappreciated (especially by younger people, who have grown up in the current decadent period) how quickly it changes over time. This is not a subject I have spent much time researching, but as an example, I remember an SBS documentary in which an old gay American guy said that, prior to about the 1970's, gay culture was not at all fixated on anal sex as its predominant sexual practice. As I recall, he claimed that in the 1940's and 50's, gay men who wanted that were seen by most other gay men as being somewhat extreme. This, however, has now changed completely in the gay community. On the heterosexual side, I suspect that the equivalent change in the 20th century is in the attitude to oral sex. (Slate has previously run a story on the apparent very recent increase in oral sex amongst American teens in particular. Experience of heterosexual anal sex has had a big increase too, although I would be curious to know how often this is a matter of regular practice, rather than one off experiment.)

Of course, much of what I am relying on for my impressions is anecdotal evidence, but establishing in retrospect what were previous community attitudes has obvious problems. The type of studies that Kinsey did on this - which do indicate a wide variety of sexual practices earlier in the 20th century - are now considered very methodologically suspect.

Everyone knows, of course, that all sorts of sexual practices were illustrated by older cultures, as shown on Greek, Chinese and Hindu art. The fact that they were illustrated, however, tells us little about the average person's attitude towards those practices. It seems still very arguable as to what exactly was the average Greek man's attitude to homosexuality, for example.

Nor is it clear that relying on famous writer's views is necessarily a good guide to past communities' attitudes. Everyone knows at least a little about the great moral panic about masturbation in the West that ran for a couple of centuries or so, yet how likely were the mountains of pamphlets and books warning of its great dangers to influence the common man's view of it? Surely most father's experience of it as a youngster would have lent some sympathetic understanding of their own offspring's practice? Even Kant, who I generally admire, went completely overboard on this topic, writing:

The obstinate throwing away of one’s life as a burden is at least not a weak surrender to animal pleasure, but requires courage; and where there is courage, there is always respect for the humanity in one’s own person. On the other hand, when one abandons himself entirely to an animal inclination, he makes himself an object of unnatural gratification, i.e., a loathsome thing, and thus deprives himself of all self-respect.

So, there is at least something to admire in suicide, but masturbation is completely depraved?

This post is going no where, I guess, except to make the point that I feel it is important to recognize that attitudes to sexual practices are subject to cultural fashion and highly debatable intellectual analysis. I am not arguing that current Western laissez-faire attitudes are inherently an improvement over past attitudes, even though I have made my view of the moral panic over masturbation clear. Rather, I am suggesting that the current predominant Western attitudes deserve analysis and justification if they are to be any more than just another cultural fashion. My tendency, of course, is to support more conservative analysis, and in that respect I would hope Roger Scruton's approach is worthwhile, but I haven't read much by him about this yet.

I haven't even directly touched the whole current attitude to sexual identity either, which I think should be subjected to the same critical approach, but that is a post for another day.

Back soon

I've been away for the weekend, and work is going to slow down blogging for a day or two. Stay with me, vast international readership, for I shall return. (With cheese shop recommendations too!)

The value of flu shots

My elderly but very active mother has always been sceptical of the benefit of flu vaccination, and every winter takes pleasure in pointing out which of her family and acquaintances have succumbed to the "flu" despite having had the shot that year. (I continually point out that there is a difference between a heavy cold and the flu, but never get far with this argument.)

However, it seems that some doctors also question the value of the flu vaccination programs, and even the evidence for their value in the elderly is a bit all over the place:

Only among people who suffer bronchitis could he find good evidence that flu vaccination was worthwhile. In infants up to two, vaccination was no better than placebo and in older children there was little evidence of benefit.

Nor could he find enough evidence of benefit among people with chronic chest problems, asthma and cystic fibrosis.

In healthy adults the best evidence was that, on average, flu vaccination of a population would prevent 0.1 per cent of a working day lost.

Combined studies of the elderly showed a variation from no effect to a 60 per cent difference when "all cause mortality" was measured.

"These findings are both counter-intuitive and implausible as other causes of death are far more prevalent in older people," he writes.

Score one for my mother?

Disturbing things to do with dogs

"Shanghai Dogs implanted with chips" is the heading of a Science Daily story of no particular interest, except it made me think "well, better than being served with chips."

Such thoughts are encouraged by the fact that I currently work with 2 people who recently told me that they have both eaten dog and highly recommend it, taste wise. (In fact, one of them says he knows how to get it in Brisbane.) I have pointed out that if ever he is caught in a raid of a dog banquet at a Brisbane restuarant, it would get a spectacular amount of publicity which would hardly be good for his career.

I have also vowed never to let him order in a restaurant where I can't understand what is going on.

It is sort of interesting to note the difference in cultural attitudes to eating dog, and how it is hard to overcome the repulsion which you know a fair slab of the rest of the world just doesn't get.

Adams and Masters talk about sex, presumably

Phillip Adams had Chris Masters on his radio show last night but I missed it. It will be repeated today at 4pm, but I will probably miss that too. The show is available on line, but no transcript.. This should be interesting, given Adams' previous column about Jones which I criticised here.

Pelican Lector

Breaking news: a pelican goes mad in London and (wait for it) - eats a pigeon! The gruesome details in The Times, complete with slightly suspicious looking photo.

Snide Masters

The piece in the Australian this morning by Tim Barton, a person who gets a mention in Chris Masters' work of pseudo-freudian journalism on Alan Jones, is worth reading. This section sums up the case against Masters perfectly:

Masters justifies his exploration of Jones's sexuality on the basis that he couldn't ignore the elephant in the room, that "the masking" of Jones's "apparent homosexuality is a defining feature of the Jones persona" and that Jones's "concealment of his sexuality" preserves "a dishonest power base".

I suppose any proponent of this apparently Freudian approach to journalism could argue that a person's sexuality is a defining feature of persona. Perhaps Masters's own sexuality or sex life, whatever that may be, along with his relationship with his mother and his feelings towards his father, are relevant to his persona, including his public role as a journalist.

But even if drawing such a long bow made sense, does that legitimise the dumping of conventions of privacy and fairness? I don't think so. On Masters's analysis, any person with a power base who chooses not to talk about their sex life is somehow dishonest and therefore fair game. Forget that no wrongdoing is involved and forget that the allegations are speculative.

What's also amusing is how Masters snidely draws Tim Barton into the picture he wants to paint of Jones.

Even I am caught in the crossfire of Masters's calculated and facile innuendo. Jonestown's first reference to me describes a "slim, artistic youth". Good gracious, I wondered, was my persona about to be deconstructed or did Masters simply think the shirt I wore on the only occasion we have met was particularly snazzy? Who knows what constitutes his definition of artistic? But, arguably, Masters's curious adjectives are sufficiently charged to send certain readers' minds in particular directions.

Thanks, Chris. Not.

More seriously, Barton then cites a clear factual matter where Masters is wrong in the book, and despite Barton having clearly told him the correct version.

I wonder if Masters if feeling the pressure about all this, or is he just laughing all the way to the bank? His credibility is suffering.

The "one planet" lifestyle

The Guardian also notes this from the World Wildlife Fund:

The world's ecosystems are being degraded at an unprecedented rate, and by 2050 humans will need at least two planets' worth of natural resources to live as they do now, the conservation group WWF warned today.

If everyone lived as Britons did, three planets would be needed to sustain the world's population, the group said....

"A commitment to one-planet living must include a commitment by the UK government to adopt ecological footprint as a sustainable development indicator and set targets for year-on-year reduction.

"Otherwise, one-planet living is at risk of becoming just another overused soundbite with no teeth."

Hey, who said we could never use other planets' resources? Start with putting an big sail on an asteroid and bring it to near earth permanent orbit. Go to the moon and see how humans like it there. (Would at least be a great sports venue.) Try terraforming Venus, no one else is using it. (Probably won't work for a million years, but will be fun watching what happens.)

Not enough imagination at the WWF.

New male contraceptive

The Guardian reports on early research linking excessive mobile phone use to lower sperm counts and quality in men. Someone should now do an international comparison between mobile phone use and infertility in different countries. Would be interesting, even if completely inconclusive.

The balanced ABC

Phillip Adams does the predictable and hyperventilates today about a renewed attempt to make the ABC more politically balanced:

Focusing on perhaps 5 per cent of its output, critics will conduct frenzied attacks on the organisation and a handful of individuals within it, demanding balance and accountability.

I am curious as to where he gets the 5% figure from.

I've said before that local ABC radio (at least the Brisbane version of it) displays little in the way of political bias. In other States it is different: Sydney has Richard Glover, used to have John Doyle (I think), and Melbourne still has Jon Faine: all broadcasters with clear Labor leaning sympathies. But Radio National, Phillip's own treasured turf, displays balance by this line up of presenters:

Phillip Adams: I understand he made his riches via the most readily criticise-able aspect of modern capitalism (advertising). Now devotes much of his 4 hours of radio each week to left-ish commentators who are critical of capitalism. Also gets to recycle his views in the feverishly unbalanced News Limited media. Like much of Radio National, also has an international audience via Radio Australia and the WWW. (Some voice in the wilderness, hey). Often tells us lately how successful his podcasting is going. Doesn't write books about how stupid belief in God is, just brings it up directly or indirectly in his newspaper columns about once a month. (Hey, it's a guess, but maybe as accurate as his 5% figure.)

Terry Lane: seems to have had an hour a week forever to spout his Phillip Adams-esque views on life. Also a strident atheist who writes books about how silly belief in God is. Also is straining to be heard because of a weekly newspaper column in The Age.

Robyn Williams: 20 year fixture as host of The Science Show. Athiest. Writes books showing why religion is stupid.

Stephen Crittenden: runs the Religion Report, and seems to have spent an inordinate amount of time on the issue of gays in the church. Googling him tonight seems to have confirmed that he is openly gay. (Not that there is anything wrong with that, at least if you are a political conservative.)

Geraldine Doogue: been a floating fixture around the ABC on TV and radio forever and a day. A Catholic, but, I suspect, one with very liberal leanings. Can't find much to confirm that yet, but I am sure the evidence is out there!

Paul Collins: frequent commentator on religion. Ex Catholic priest who now worries a lot about ecology.

Fran Kelly: adequate enough host of morning show, but not as good at keeping bias in check as previous host Peter Thompson.

Radio National identities in whom I have not really identified anything clearly indicating a left wing bias: Norman Swan and Alan Saunders.

Radio National presenters with clear conservative-ish reputation: Michael Duffy. (Maybe he is just more of a general contrarian.) Has one hour a week. The show has been on for about a year.

Get the picture here?

A Lefty can still be a good broadcaster; and clearly it doesn't stop me listening to their shows. But there is nothing evenly vaguely resembling a fair range of political and social opinion in the staff of taxpayer funded Radio National, and further moves to balance this up can only be good.

Oh no

ABC broadcaster Maxine McKew won't be with the ABC much longer. I've always liked her as an interviewer and current affairs host. Despite the fact that she's been living with (now married to, apparently) senior Labor figure Bob Hogg, she has always seemed to me to be a more balanced interviewer than Kerry O'Brien or Tony Jones.

I am surprised that she is 53. She wears it well. Here's a photo of her from 2003:

The SMH profile of her from which that photo is taken was very interesting. In fact, I was only telling someone last week how this snippet from that story had stuck in my mind:

During the hungry years of her early career, McKew's private life was not good "There were a lot of Heathcliffs. A lot of 'bad, mad and dangerous to know'.' Hogg was a revelation. He was "a lovely grown-up".

"I had never met a man who had milk in the fridge that hadn't passed the use-by date, or a clean bathroom or fresh flowers on the mantelpiece. It was the way he looked after himself. It was grown-up."

I remembered this because I found it hard to imagine her going out with "bad men". (It also makes Bob Hogg sound like a big girl, which is kind of funny too.)

I hope I remember to watch her last Lateline, whenever that may be.

Appleyard blogs

I discovered over the weekend that Bryan Appleyard has a blog.

He is a bit of an odd character, and can come across as fairly pompous, but his 1992 book "Understanding the Present" impressed me, even though it suffered by a sudden infusion of Wittgenstein at the end.

Anyway, his views seem never to be entirely predictable, which makes him an interesting read.

The problem with stem cells

Nature has a story that explains the problems with attempted stem cell treatment of Parkinson's Disease, which always seems to be the disease most mentioned as being potentially curable by such treatment.

The problem is cancer caused as a side effect.

I also saw most of an SBS Insight program about therapeutic cloning and stem cell research a few weeks ago. It was interesting to see at least some medical experts expressing scepticism of stem cell treatment:

JENNY BROCKIE: Jack Martin, you're former director of St Vincent's Institute of Medical Research. Do you share this optimism about stem cell research?

JACK MARTIN, FMR. PROF. OF MEDICINE, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY: No, I have to say I don't. And I would take issue with quite a number of things that Elizabeth Finkel has just said. She's implied that there has been proof of concept of efficacy of embryonic stem cell therapy in a number of diseases and mentioned Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury and diabetes, and that is absolutely untrue. There are temporary and partial improvements in chemically induced Parkinson's disease in rodents and in a couple of monkey studies, and in no case has this been prolonged and in no case has it been a long enough.. It's either been associated with a serious complication of cancer teratoma formation or it's not been carried out for long enough to determine whether that's been avoided or not.

Of course, there were others present who were much more optimistic than this.

Not a happy picture

This lengthy essay on the recent history of the Middle East in the Economist is pretty good reading. The article argues that all of the "threats to global order" that have come from there in the last 60 years have one thing in common:

They have all been, in essence, resistance movements, inspired by a seemingly unquenchable popular urge to challenge the dominant perceived injustice of the day, whether it be European colonialism, Zionism, American hegemonism or the grip of local governments charged with selling out to the West.

The most reliable populist cry today remains “resistance”. Sudan's strongman, Omar al-Bashir, blasts the proposed deployment of UN troops in Darfur as the spearhead of a new Western crusade. The Shias and Sunnis in Iraq may be fighting each other for dominance, but the call to “resist” the American occupiers and the weak (though elected) government they sponsor wins passionate followers to both camps. Hizbullah rouses region-wide cheers for bloodying Israel's nose. Clearly, although times have changed, this dynamic has not.

What has changed is that the call to resist now inspires unprecedented enthusiasm, galvanising many disparate political streams at once, secular and nationalist as well as Islamist. The religious element, boosted by the great revival that has swept Muslim societies across the globe, adds a scriptural drumbeat to the call. And lately the impulse to resist has also been strengthened by the failing prestige of traditional countervailing forces—America, the moderate governments in the region and the liberal-minded minority of their citizens.

Generally, my feeling is that the essay is too fast to point the finger at the USA and Israel, at the expense of any substantial mention of the social and political dynamic within the countries that has resulted in a group of nations with vast material resources having such unhappy citizens. Still, worth reading.