Mugabe will triumph at Hain’s departure

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Peter Hain’s resignation, one man will be celebrating his downfall today. Hunched in his redoubt in Harare, fresh from having beaten another opposition rally off the streets, Robert Mugabe will be having a good day.

Mugabe developed an almost hysterical hatred for the outgoing Work and Pensions Secretary when Hain served as the Foreign Office minister responsible for Africa. Hain held this job between 1999 and 2001 when Zimbabwe’s headlong slide into ruin began.

To his great credit, Hain was unsparing in his criticism of Mugabe. When President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa studiously looked the other way and ignored Zimbabwe’s descent, Hain attacked him as well.

Mugabe genuinely thought that Hain was running an international conspiracy designed to overthrow him. I was based in Zimbabwe at the time and I used to attend rallies where Mugabe’s loyal supporters waved banners reading “Peter Hain – stop lying about Zimbabwe”.

If you can tell something about a man from his enemies, then all this reflects very well on Hain.

 
David Blair Political Editor 

jewelry bridalданильченко юрій броніславович

Let’s acknowledge, but stop mobilising around race

ImageThe recent shooting of three black people by Johan Nel (18) in the Skielik settlement in Swartruggens has illustrated the fragile nature of South African race relations. Within hours after the shooting, emotions on both sides of the racial divide were running high with opposition parties objecting to the political exploitation of the case while in front of the court building the anti-white slogan, “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer”, was resounding.

In all societies, there are occasional murders by disturbed individuals who would attempt to append a political or moral motive to an essentially pathological deed. For example, murderer and rapist William Kekana who wiped out the Rawstorne family, including one-year old Kayla, in 2004 claimed he did it “because of apartheid”. He was also quoted as saying, “We did everything we did because they were white.”

To date, Johan Nel has made no such appeals to racial solidarity to justify his horrific acts. Yet the incident has been seized upon by the ruling ANC’s Patrick Chauke as racially motivated and he has even objected to the case being heard in Afrikaans. Clearly, the Nel murders have become a rallying point for ethnic mobilisation, as can be found all over the world in multiethnic societies from Belgium to Rwanda. In the U.S. last year, an innocuous high-school prank involving nooses tied to a tree became a national political issue when high-profile black politicians descended upon Jena, Louisiana (population: 3000), like scavengers scenting symbolic carrion from the bygone days of Southern segregation.

However, South Africa’s racial problems are running far deeper than mere point-scoring by ethnically driven politicians. Race is a powerful source of identity, especially in the absence of other common binding elements such as culture, language or a shared sense of history. Even the liberal DA makes subtle appeals to white (and coloured) racial solidarity in attempting to unite the opposition. Jeremy Cronin of the SACP cautioned some time ago against a “smug rainbowism” that substitutes “true reconciliation” for “a simplified and somewhat candy-coated myth of peace that has served to reconcile those on the inside whilst pitting them against those on the outside”.

Paradoxically, the end of apartheid has not meant the end of racial identity in this country. In many ways, government policies like transformation, the African Renaissance and silent diplomacy towards Zimbabwe have created a much stronger racial consciousness among black South Africans than carrying a pass book or standing in segregated lines at the post office ever did.

Official non-racialism or “smug rainbowism” as Cronin calls it, does not foster a new, sanitized South African identity without hard edges. In fact, the denial of race in South Africa might be one of the leading causes of racial murder and even potential genocide as has happened in many African countries since the end of the Cold War.

Rightly or wrongly, a large proportion of whites and Afrikaners believe that the spate of vicious farm murders almost routinely involving torture are racially motivated. The sms rumours spread in March last year concerning Mandela’s death and an “uhuru” or “night of the long knives” that would inexorably follow, demonstrate nothing if not the existence of real fears of violent retribution among whites.

Whatever motivated Johan Nel to murder three people and wound nine others will come out in his trial.  Let us not speculate on that. However, given the effects of transformation that increasingly excludes young whites from the labour market and from educational opportunities, it is surely inevitable that resentment and alienation among them will grow. Add to that the perception that government is soft on crime, especially black-on-white crime, and one has all the elements for self-styled vigilantes to start attacking the nearest township or informal settlement in symbolic racial revenge. Counter-attacks might follow and within days or even hours, South Africa could polarise along racial lines and be plunged into a Rwandan-style nightmare that will change this country forever.

If we are to avoid such a fate, we should seriously question whether we can continue with policies, legislation and a philosophy of racial exclusivism such as Africanism which characterises whites as “outsiders” and therefore potential scapegoats for the many ills and failures of our society. Another fear that is often voiced among Afrikaners and whites generally, is that the current division and power struggle within the ANC will lead to a renewed quest for unity among blacks that could only be provided by race. This is more or less what occurred in Zimbabwe where tribal and political divisions among the two black parties led to the expropriation and expulsion of the white minority. The same thing happened in the Ivory Coast where the French government had to airlift whites out of the country during fighting between rival black factions.

Exploiting cases such as Johan Nel’s for ethnic mobilisation should not be pursued by Patrick Chauke or anyone else. The law must be strictly applied to all crimes, regardless of the race of the victim or the perpetrator. The vast mobilisation of police resources and the quick apprehension of Johan Nel stands in stark contrast to the lack of any real progress made by the police in the case of Frans Pieterse who was tortured and murdered by black assailants in the same area in July 2007.

While acknowledging race as a constituent of our various identities, the ANC should scrap all the legislation and policies that favour blacks over whites and so put an end to the source of resentment and frustration among young whites.

The alternative of increasing racial polarisation and ethnic mobilisation as may be seen in Swartruggens is, to borrow a phrase from the late B.J. Vorster, too ghastly to contemplate.

точечный встроенныйАлександр Фильчаков

‘Pakistan is the most important country in the world’

‘Even now that the full sorrow of this terrible event is inescapable, it is still too soon to weigh up the consequences or foresee the future." Harold Macmillan’s tribute to his friend John F Kennedy hours after his assassination on November 22, 1963, has fresh resonance this weekend as the world reels once again from the murder of a glamorous political dynast.

One of JFK’s favourite poems was Alan Seeger’s I Have a Rendezvous with Death. On Thursday, Benazir Bhutto kept a rendezvous that was both long predicted and deeply shocking.

No longer prime minister when he wrote his tribute, Macmillan was able to express his bewilderment and disorientation more candidly than would have been possible if he had still been in Downing Street.

His reaction was therefore psychologically authentic, capturing the frisson of empathy and fear that courses down the spine of any world leader when they hear such news.

To head a government – or to seek to regain high office, in Ms Bhutto’s case – is to join a very exclusive global club of human targets: those who risk extinction simply by turning up to work in the morning. On Thursday, each of them thought: there but for the grace of God.

At such moments, all politicians claim that ordinary politics has been suspended by grief, that the world needs time to mourn and heal before normal service is resumed. Scratch the surface, however, and politics is invariably fizzing away: odds are laid, positions tested and action prepared.

In this case, one did not have to scratch very far.

The lead was taken in the US, where Barack Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, said that his candidate had opposed the war in Iraq precisely because it would divert resources from the fight against al-Qa’eda and its affiliates.

"Senator Clinton made a different judgment, so let’s have that discussion," declared Mr Axelrod – as close as he could get to saying that Hillary pulled the trigger, without actually doing so.

In Westminster, with no election imminent, the politics is less explicit. But it is there all the same.

On Friday, Nirj Deva, a Tory MEP and spokesman on international development, broke cover on the website conservativehome.blogs.com in order to apportion blame.

"Through their collective failure to crack down on the extremism that is Pervez Musharraf’s dictatorship," he wrote, "Western governments have not just Benazir Bhutto’s blood on their hands… but that of scores of civilians who have died in terrorist attacks around the world."

The significance of Mr Deva’s outburst is that he said in public what many more senior Tories are saying in private. "We are heading towards an appeasement mentality," one shadow cabinet member told me. "I just don’t think Brown focuses on this in any sort of systematic way."

In the week before Ms Bhutto’s assassination, the Conservatives had been harrying the Prime Minister on the question of prospective negotiations with the Taliban.

Now, in the wake of fresh bloodshed, Gordon Brown faces a much more pressing series of questions about an Islamic nuclear power that may yet become a failed state.

Principally, he must decide how far and with what conditions to back George W Bush’s Pakistan policy – which has been, for six years, "Musharraf, right or wrong."

In particular, the PM must decide how intensively, and how publicly, the British Government should now deal with Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the opposition Pakistan Muslim League (N): a calculation which has been made more complex by Sharif’s pledge to boycott elections if they go ahead on January 8.

Mr Bush’s loyalty to Pakistan’s president is longstanding and deep, born in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. How Mr Brown handles the Musharraf Question may well be the first real test of the supposedly recalibrated special relationship.

The PM will be mindful that Tony Blair’s alliance with Bush over the Lebanese conflict was the proximate cause of the September coup against him in 2006.

While it is hardly likely that Labour backbenchers will rise up against Gordon if he makes the wrong call over Pakistan, the PM will not want to be seen to be supporting a failed presidency in Islamabad merely to placate a failed presidency in Washington.

What has this to do with domestic British politics? Everything. Mr Brown likes to say that "over there is now here" – a more demotic version of Mr Blair’s doctrine of global "interdependence". There could be no more vivid illustration of this principle than the fate of Pakistan in 2008.

What happens next there has huge implications for security and the fight against fundamentalism elsewhere, not least in Britain. The prospective disintegration of Pakistan dramatises the integration of the modern world.

Lest we forget: the aspiration to create a Pakistani democracy, founded on the rule of law and anchored by prosperity, is challenged by ancestral forces that have turned this most fragile of states into a breeding ground for jihad.

In April, the Operation Crevice trial ended with the jailing of five men who had plotted to bomb a shopping centre, nightclub and the gas network. Four of the defendants had trained at the same terrorist camp in Pakistan. Three of the four July 7 bombers visited Pakistan in the year before the London attacks.

Omar Bakri Muhammad, the banned Islamist preacher, has described this outsourced training of British jihadis as "National Service" and "part of a young Muslim’s religious obligations". These "obligations" include learning how to make bombs, handle rocket-propelled grenades and fire an AK-47.

Over the summer, a 46-minute video-tape was released depicting 250 graduates of one such training camp near the Afghan-Pakistani border, including speeches in English by recruits. "We are not only fighting in Afghanistan," said the Taliban leader Mullah Mansoor.

"We will commit suicidal attacks and we will destroy [the West’s] national assets."

Indeed, so direct is the "conveyor belt" between the two countries that one protagonist in the Crevice case forgot the crucial ratios required to mix the explosives and emailed a contact in Pakistan direct for assistance.

Pakistan is both finishing school for British terrorists, and provider of the helpline once operations are up and running.

During 2008, Mr Brown will try to persuade the Commons to extend the maximum pre-charge detention period for terror suspects from 28 to 42 days. He will seek to ratify an EU Treaty that will alter, yet again, the rules of the game governing migration.

As he struggles to restore control of our borders, he will be conscious that 60 per cent of non-EU immigrants are now Muslims: this underpins his concern that the battle for "hearts and minds" be fought at home as well as abroad.

All these, and other controversies, will be made more vivid by the assassination of Ms Bhutto. Hers will be the ghost in the Commons, admonishing MPs to remember what the Islamist enemy is willing to do; that, as much as we would like it to be otherwise, this is a conflict without rules and without limit, in which disengagement is only an option for the deluded.

And, for now at least, the frontline of this conflict is in Pakistan. Already the crucible of jihad, it is an adolescent nation, armed with nuclear weapons, on the verge of collapse.

Benazir Bhutto’s rendezvous with death was a reminder of history’s caprice: the geopolitical and the personal are often perilously intertwined.

Imagine, if you will, a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. Well, this is the very opposite. On the eve of 2008, Pakistan is quite simply the most important country in the world.

• Matthew d’Ancona is Editor of the Spectator.

slot machineФильчаков прокурор харькова

Britain Drops ‘War on Terror’ Label

The words "war on terror" will no longer be used by the British government to describe attacks on the public, the country’s chief prosecutor said Dec. 27.

Sir Ken Macdonald said terrorist fanatics were not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless "death cult."

The Director of Public Prosecutions said: ‘We resist the language of warfare, and I think the government has moved on this. It no longer uses this sort of language."

London is not a battlefield, he said.

"The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers," Macdonald said. "They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way."

His remarks signal a change in emphasis across Whitehall, where the "war on terror" language has officially been ditched.

Officials were concerned it could act as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, which is determined to manufacture a battle between Islam and the West.

The term "Islamic terrorist" will also no longer be used. Officials believe it is unhelpful because it appears to directly link the religion to terrorist atrocities.

In an interview with BBC Radio’s World at One, Macdonald made a fresh attack on plans to extend beyond 28 days the length of time a terror suspect can be held without trial.

He said that the evidence had shown that the existing limit was working well and he accused ministers of legislating on the basis of ‘hypotheticals’.

справки в универ по болезнилобановский александр интервью

U.S. Troops to Head to Pakistan

Beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning.

These Pakistan-centric operations will mark a shift for the U.S. military and for U.S. Pakistan relations. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the U.S. used Pakistani bases to stage movements into Afghanistan. Yet once the U.S. deposed the Taliban government and established its main operating base at Bagram, north of Kabul, U.S. forces left Pakistan almost entirely. Since then, Pakistan has restricted U.S. involvement in cross-border military operations as well as paramilitary operations on its soil.

But the Pentagon has been frustrated by the inability of Pakistani national forces to control the borders or the frontier area. And Pakistan’s political instability has heightened U.S. concern about Islamic extremists there.

According to Pentagon sources, reaching a different agreement with Pakistan became a priority for the new head of the U.S. Special Operations Command, Adm. Eric T. Olson. Olson visited Pakistan in August, November and again this month, meeting with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman Gen. Tariq Majid and Lt. Gen. Muhammad Masood Aslam, commander of the military and paramilitary troops in northwest Pakistan. Olson also visited the headquarters of the Frontier Corps, a separate paramilitary force recruited from Pakistan’s border tribes.

Now, a new agreement, reported when it was still being negotiated last month, has been finalized. And the first U.S. personnel could be on the ground in Pakistan by early in the new year, according to Pentagon sources.

U.S. Central Command Commander Adm. William Fallon alluded to the agreement and spoke approvingly of Pakistan’s recent counterterrorism efforts in an interview with Voice of America last week.

"What we’ve seen in the last several months is more of a willingness to use their regular army units," along the Afghan border, Fallon said. "And this is where, I think, we can help a lot from the U.S. in providing the kind of training and assistance and mentoring based on our experience with insurgencies recently and with the terrorist problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we share a lot with them, and we’ll look forward to doing that."

If Pakistan actually follows through, perhaps 2008 will be a better year.

проект сауны для дачитопкарго развод

Lakota break away from US

The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.

They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free — provided residents renounce their US citizenship, Means said.

The treaties signed with the United States are merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists say on their website.

The treaties have been "repeatedly violated in order to steal our culture, our land and our ability to maintain our way of life," the reborn freedom movement says.

Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said.

"This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution," which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said.

"It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent," said Means.

The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence — an overt play on the title of the United States’ Declaration of Independence from England.

Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks were in a row," Means said.

One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples — despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws.

"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children," Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.

The US "annexation" of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people," said Means.

Oppression at the hands of the US government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies — less than 44 years — in the world.

Lakota teen suicides are 150 percent above the norm for the United States; infant mortality is five times higher than the US average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement’s website.

"Our people want to live, not just survive or crawl and be mascots," said Young.

"We are not trying to embarrass the United States. We are here to continue the struggle for our children and grandchildren," she said, predicting that the battle would not be won in her lifetime.

насос консольный ценатопкарго отзывы

Italian says 9-11 solved

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:

“All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe…know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.”

Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992.

Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment, and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and ’80s. Gladio’s specialty was to carry out what they termed “false flag” operations—terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.

In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001, and is quoted by 9-11 researcher Webster Tarpley saying “The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”

Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga’s assertion that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge among global intelligence agencies is illuminating. It is one more eye-opening confirmation that has not been mentioned by America’s propaganda machine in print or on TV. Nevertheless, because of his experience and status in the world, Cossiga cannot be discounted as a crackpot.

оборудование баниФильчаков прокурор харькова

Britain tries to buy influence

BERLIN – The United States lost its status as the largest donor to the World Bank’s main fund for poor countries, the lender said on Friday, as Britain pledged more in the latest funding round that secured a record amount of aid.

Losing its position as the top donor could weaken Washington’s influence over the World Bank, which is the largest provider of development assistance to poor countries, and over the policies that decide how its cash is spent.

The Washington-based lender conducts a fund-raising campaign among its richer members every three years to determine funding for the International Development Association. The IDA is the bank’s lending arm.

After negotiations that began in March in Paris and ended with two days of talks in Berlin, Britain promised US$4.2 billion ($5.4 billion) for the period from July 2008 through June 2011, World Bank President Robert Zoellick told reporters in a conference call.

The US Treasury said it pledged US$3.7 billion to the bank’s International Development Association fund, up 30 per cent from its contribution three years ago and the largest increase since the Carter administration in the 1970s.

A senior Treasury official applauded Britain’s move, which amounts to an increase of about 50 per cent.

"We made our decision based on what we thought was a solid number — one of the largest increases the United States has ever made — and the UK obviously put in an even greater amount, which means that the overall number for IDA goes up. We think it’s great what the UK did," said Clay Lowery, Treasury assistant secretary for international affairs.

Lowery said the United States "has no problem" with Britain being a larger donor, adding that it is "good for poor people, which is frankly what we’re mostly concerned about."

Forty-five donor countries, the most ever, promised a record total of US$25.1 billion at the Berlin talks, with a further US$16.5 billion coming from the bank and previous donor pledges for financing debt forgiveness, officials told the news conference.

The total of US$41.6 billion, also a record, represents an increase of US$9.5 billion over the previous funding period and will support around 80 countries, mainly in Africa.

In a coup for Zoellick, who is in China this week, Beijing was one of six nations joining the list of donors for the first time, along with Cyprus, Egypt and the three Baltic states.

"We’re feeling pretty positive, but I’m glad I don’t have to do this every year," Zoellick said. "The donor community has demonstrated its full commitment to helping countries overcome poverty and achieve sustainable growth, especially in Africa."

 
Zoellick said the money would go toward helping 2.5 billion people in poor nations across five continents.

IDA-financed projects support education, basic health services, clean water and sanitation, as well as environmental safeguards, infrastructure and policy and institutional reform.

The latest talks were complicated by slowing economic growth in rich nations and the weakening dollar, which inflates contributions by some other countries when calculated in the US currency.

At the same time, the bank’s mission is widening, with governments demanding more help in developing sophisticated economies and markets.

The United States, whose economy is almost six times as big as Britain’s, wanted to hold on to its No. 1 spot as the bank’s largest donor, but it is also struggling with a budget stretched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US share of contributions has slowly declined from 22 per cent in 1960, the year of the fund’s inception, to about 14.7 per cent of the fund in the new round.

Britain’s share is now 16.7 per cent of the fund.

In comparison, after the previous round of IDA negotiations in 2005, the US share was 13.8 per cent and Britain’s was 13.2 per cent.

The US$3.7 billion US contribution, which Congress must approve, will be split into annual appropriations requests over the next three years.

Germany made the fourth-biggest contribution to the new funding round, boosting its pledge by 18.57 per cent to 1.514 billion euros ($2.8 billion), the Development Ministry said.

туники купить недорогоФильчаков Харьков

No “coalition of the willing’

Nearly five years into the occupation of Iraq, the ‘coalition of the willing’ is about to lose two of its key supporters.

The British handover to Iraqi forces is seen as the beginning of the end for Britain, which plans to cut its troop numbers dramatically.

With Australia planning to withdraw its combat troops, the United States will soon be the only country left.

Al Qaeda is already trying to make mileage out of the latest development, saying the pull-back by British troops shows insurgents have gained the upper hand.

Basra is the ninth of Iraq’s 18 provinces to resume responsibility for its own security. The British Commander there is Major-General Graham Binns:

"I commanded the coalition troops who entered Basra in April 2003. Four-and-a-half years later I have the privilege of handing the city and the province back to Iraqi control," he said.

"I came to rid Basra of its enemies and I now formally hand Basra back to its friends."

But not everyone believes Basra is from free of its enemies. This resident doesn’t trust the Iraqi troops who are now in charge.

"The police and army are from the militias. Who do we speak to? If you go to the police station you’ll be killed the next day."

The, 4,500 British troops in Iraq won’t be leaving immediately but they are taking a back-seat role, focusing instead on training Iraqis.

Britain will reduce its troop numbers to 2,500 early next year and a decision on a complete pullout is expected within months.

The Australian Government is yet to announce exactly when and how Australia’s 500 or so combat troops will be withdrawn, but Ron Huisken from the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University says the impact in Iraq will be more symbolic than strategic.

"Our move is elevated because we were one of the three musketeers if you like, the three that went in from the beginning," he said.

"So there’s a bit of extra symbolism that attaches to our withdrawal of combat troops. But in combat terms it’ll make very little difference at all."

Al Qaeda is already attaching symbolism to Britain’s handover in Basra. The group has posted a video on the internet of its second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who says it shows insurgents are gaining the upper hand there.

Dr Michael McKinley, a senior lecturer in international relations at the Australian National University, says that’s not an accurate interpretation.

"Not entirely. Clearly the British wanted to get out of southern Iraq and they have wanted to get out for a while and they have actually suffered some small military reverses – some of their outposts have actually been overrun by local militia," he said.

"I think the British were not prepared to give an indefinite undertaking. Nobody really would be.

"But the British are getting out with the fear that there is no clear, dominant party in southern Iraq, there are some competing Shia factions, and that is very much a cause for concern."

Only US forces left

Dr McKinley says the British troops’ handover of power in Basra has symbolic importance.

"The significance really is that this is the last of the major contributions of the ‘coalition of the willing’ from outside the United States to go," he said.

"I mean, Australia is there, but the British were always stronger in numbers than Australia. So this is quite important symbolically. It marks the effective end of the British commitment in a significant way."

He says that leaves the United States hoping its own strategy will work.

"It leaves the United States on course for what it wants, which is, it will – even when they have the ‘drawdown’… of their forces – the United States is still talking about at least 50,000 will be in Iraq to look over things," he said.

"There will be at least 50,000 private military contractors supplementing that US presence.

"So, it means basically that it’s like a wish list. They’re hoping like hell that it’s going to work."

чистка зубов аппаратом air flowОлександр Васильович Фільчаков

Creationism row ends in death

A bizarre row about evolution versus creationism led to an English backpacker fatally stabbing a Scottish backpacker during a fruit-picking trip to earn money for their travels.

Alexander York, 33, from Essex, was sentenced to a maximum of five years in jail yesterday for the manslaughter of Rudi Boa, 28, a biomedical student from Inverness.

The incident happened in January last year at a caravan park in southern New South Wales, where York had become friendly with Mr Boa and his girlfriend, Gillian Brown. The Scottish couple had just arrived in Australia, and headed to Tumut, a picturesque town at the foothills of the Snowy Mountains, to pick fruit.

Their neighbour at the Blowering Holiday Park was Alexander York, who had been in Australia since April 2005. The three of them got on well. On the night of Mr Boa’s death, they had spent the evening drinking at a pub in Tumut, the Star Hotel.

Towards the end of the night, however, they became embroiled in the creationism versus evolution argument, and it escalated into a shouting-match in the pub. Mr Boa and Ms Brown were both adamantly opposed to York’s Christian fundamentalist point of view.

Sentencing York in the New South Wales Supreme Court yesterday, Justice Michael Adams said: "Although this became perhaps a little sharp-edged, it did not really amount to anything.

"For some reason, however … the offender’s mood changed suddenly and he began to abuse Ms Boa and Ms Brown. There was no hint of a physical confrontation and what happened amounted to little more than a verbal contretemps."

The row had been defused by the time the backpackers left the pub separately, but all three were drunk, and tempers flared again after they returned to the caravan park.

Ms Brown told the court that York, who had been making dinner, attacked the couple outside his tent and delivered a single stab wound Mr Boa with a kitchen knife. York claimed he lashed out in self-defence after being attacked by Mr Boa.

He was found guilty of manslaughter but acquitted of murder, and ordered to serve at least three years in jail. The judge said he was giving him a relatively lenient sentence partly because of the accidental nature of the stabbing.

"I do not believe that he took aim, but rather thrust out," he said. "I think he knew that the knife was in his hand … but he did not actually turn his mind to the potentially serious consequences of doing this.

"The offender’s act was done impulsively and on the spur of the moment. I do not think the offender was aware of how seriously he had harmed Mr Boa."

The judge added that York was "a person of good character" and that the offence was "a complete aberration". York, unshaven and dressed in prison uniform, sat impassively as he was sentenced. Mr Boa’s sister, Debbie, broke down when York was led into court, and during the sentencing.

A spokeswoman for the New South Wales office of the Director of Public Prosecutions said: "Justice Michael Adams QC took into account that part of the sentence has been served. Mr York is eligible for release in January 2009."

Burglin’ BobАлександр Фильчаков Васильевич

Flemish boo beauty queen

Belgium’s political tensions entered the glamour stakes after it was revealed that the new Miss Belgium does not speak Dutch.

Alizee Poulicek, who comes from the country’s French-speaking region, was booed by some of the 4,000 audience when she admitted that she could not understand a question put to her in Dutch at the contest on Saturday night in the main Flemish city of Antwerp.

Poulicek, a 20-year-old language student, speaks French, Czech and English, but Flemish tabloid daily Het Laatste Niuews headlined its Monday edition with: "Miss Belgium does not speak Dutch".

The paper underlined that the "community crisis in our country" — where there is no government six months after general elections amid bickering between leaders of the main French and Flemish parties — "has insinuated itself into even the lightest sector."

Poulicek’s victory "is not going down well," the daily said.

She said she had been taking Dutch lessons before the contest and has pledged to improve her standard in one of Belgium’s three official languages, along with French and German.

The incident did not hurt her image with television viewers who voted for her, but Flemish journalists assailed her with questions at a press conference, highlighting her deficiencies in their tongue.

The Flemish community accounts for 60 percent of Belgium’s 10.5 million people. A further 3.5 million live in Wallonia and one million in the largely Francophone, but officially bilingual Brussels.

безмасляные компрессоры ценаЛобановский

The Peak Oil Crisis

Peak Oil started as a story about geology. It was once relatively simple. After 150 years of pumping up oil, the easy-to-find kind was gone and from here on out it was going to be much more difficult to find and eventually prohibitively expensive.

In recent years, however, the peak oil story took on new facets such as rapidly increasing consumption of oil in Asia and producing countries, concentration of most production in the hands of a few governments, unstable world finances, rapidly increasing cost of production and a growing inability or unwillingness to export oil to other countries.

Of all the reasons that gas prices are going up, only the geologic constraint – “supplies are running out” – has an air of finality. There is nothing anybody can do about it.

Other constraints on unlimited oil flows sometimes called “above ground factors” carry with them the subtle implication that there is something that can and just might be done to set things right. A war on top of your oilfield? Stop it! Getting too expensive to produce the necessary oil? Invest more. Government failing to step up production? Change the government! You get the idea. Peaking of world oil production by definition implies that the oil age is on the way out. Almost any other reason for restricted oil flows implies there is a “fix” which will allow us to continue on for awhile without any great disruption.

For over 25 years now, nobody in America has had to think much about oil. It was cheap, hardly taxed at all (by European standards), and available in unlimited quantities. In the last few years, this has started to change with gasoline circa $3 a gallon, oil in the $90s and, thanks to the ethanol craze, food prices going through the roof. Our newspapers are starting to take notice. The problem has become too big to ignore.

Three weeks ago the Wall Street Journal took a stab at explaining what was happening and came up with the notion that world oil production was only “plateauing,” not peaking. Plateauing carries the implication that life as we know it can go on for awhile. All the oil we import today will continue to be available and, if only the Chinese economy would stop growing so fast, all will be well.

Last Sunday, the New York Times came at the high gas price problem from a different direction – availability of imports. Drawing on the combined wisdom of no less than seven of their reporters strung out around the earth, the Times boldly concluded that “The economies of many big oil-exporting countries are growing so fast that their need for energy within their borders is crimping how much they can sell abroad.”

The Times then told its readers some very scary stuff. “Experts say the sharp growth, if it continues, means several of the world’s most important suppliers may need to start importing oil within a decade to power all the new cars, houses and businesses they are buying and creating with their oil wealth.” I particularly like the “if it continues” clause which suggests that the Russians, Mexicans, Venezuelans, Iranians and all those incredibly rich Persian Gulf Arabs might just stop buying new cars, building themselves places to live, and buying flat screen TV’s so they can export their oil to their good friends in America instead.

After more scary talk about world oil exports dropping by 2.5 million barrels a day in the next three years and how a drop of this size could lead to major economic problems, the Times switches to a reassuring mode. “The trend, though increasingly important, does not necessarily mean there will be oil shortages. More likely, experts say, it will mean big market shifts, with the number of exporting countries shrinking and unconventional sources like Canadian tar sands becoming more important, especially for the United States. And there is likely to be more pressure to open areas now closed to oil production.”

They even go so far as to suggest that an era of peace and friendship might just break out in the next few years. ”Greater political stability and increased drilling in some important oil states, notably Iraq, Iran and Venezuela, could help offset the rising demand from other oil exporters.”

After reassuring us that all is not necessarily lost, the Times concludes by reinforcing its basic point by saying “Internal oil consumption by the five biggest oil exporters — Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, Iran and the United Arab Emirates — grew 5.9 percent in 2006 over 2005, according to government data. Exports declined more than 3 percent. By contrast, oil demand is essentially flat in the United States. CIBC’s demand projections suggest that for many oil countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Libya, internal oil demand will double in a decade.”

The Times and the Journal have taken a major step forward by admitting for essentially the first time in front-page stories that the U.S. is going to face a big problem in the next few years. Neither however has connected the dots.

Nowhere does the Times remind us that the U.S. is now importing two-thirds of its oil consumption each day and that a drop of a few percent in daily flow is likely to cause pandemonium at the pumps as it did back in the 1970’s. Neither paper has as yet mustered the editorial courage to discuss the 800-pound gorilla, oil depletion, which every year quietly eats away 4 or 5 percent of our oil supply – the life blood of modern civilization.

Until our major newspapers begin discussing in a frank and open manner what will soon be the first major crisis of the 21st Century, the U.S. Congress is doomed to empty posturing and debating energy red herrings. It is clear that most have no clue as to what is about to befall us.

медицинская справка 86Александр Фильчаков Васильевич

100+ Scientists warn UN

BALI, Indonesia – The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth’s climate was “ultimately futile.”

The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, released an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN’s so-called “solutions.”

“Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems,” the letter signed by the scientists read.  The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (Canada Free Press)

The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the “Father of Meteorology”; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables,” the scientists wrote.

“In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,’ significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming,” the open letter added. [EPW Blog Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears – LINK – & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: “Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence.” (LINK) – For a detailed analysis of how “consensus” has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called “Consensus” On Global Warming – LINK ]

The scientists’ letter continued: “The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.”

“The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts,” the letter added. [EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. – LINK – An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be “an illusion.” LINK ]

Complete Letter with all signatories – As published in Canada’s National Post on December 13, 2007:

Don’t Fight, Adapt; We Should Give Up Futile Attempts to Combat Climate Change
Dec. 13, 2007

Link to Letter
Key Quote from Scientists’ Letter to UN: “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.”

His Excellency
Ban Ki-MoonSecretary-General,
United Nations New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

*Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

*The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

*Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]:

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,’ Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology

Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

тамбов тестерыФильчаков прокурор

Oil supply crunch looms

A prominent energy economist warned Tuesday that global oil markets are at risk of being under-supplied as national oil companies gain greater control of the world’s petroleum supplies.

Some 37.5 million barrels a day of additional oil-production capacity is needed by 2015, but only 25 million barrels a day are planned, International Energy Agency Chief Economist Fatih Birol said.

To narrow the gap, major oil producers, especially OPEC members, must ramp up production, Birol said, while major oil consumers, including the U.S., must make policy changes to ease demand.

While those changes are possible, there are "no major reasons to be optimistic," Birol said at an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations. Birol said he is worried that oil-producing nations will allow parochial political interests to get in the way of global economic interests.

Key oil producers in the Middle East, Venezuela and elsewhere have the reserves and the financial means to close the expected supply gap, but "the role of the market will be less and less relevant in these decisions," Birol said, imploring the providers not to use those assets for political leverage.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has threatened to cut off oil exports to the U.S. if Washington interferes in his nation’s political processes. The U.S. is the No. 1 buyer of Venezuelan oil.

To maintain growth in production capacity, the oil industry needs to invest about $5.4 trillion between now and 2030, the Paris-based agency said last month in its 2007 World Energy Outlook.

But top global energy consumers, especially the U.S., China and India, also need to do their part by implementing policies aimed at easing demand, Birol said.

If those two things do not happen, oil prices will remain near historic highs and that is not good for anyone, including the producers, he said. The average price of crude oil averaged $66 in 2006, and is expected to rise to $72 this year and reach $85 a barrel in 2008, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said Tuesday.

Light, sweet crude for January delivery added 81 cents to $88.67 a barrel in midday trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. That’s down more than $10 a barrel from the all-time high of $99.29 set last month, but still well above the year-ago price of roughly $61 a barrel.

China and India, with their rapidly advancing economies, now drive global energy demand, and China will surpass the U.S. as the world’s top energy consumer in 2010. "We are on the eve of a new world energy order," Birol said.

China and India also must ramp up efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the IEA said in its report last month. The two countries will account for about 45 percent of the increase in global demand through 2030, when the world’s energy needs are expected to be more than 50 percent higher than current levels.

подростковая спортивная одежда для мальчиковДанильченко Юрий Харьков