This is the blog of a Norwegian (Marianne, aka 'M') who moved to Australia in 2007 to be with Roger (aka R) and feels lucky to have escaped a comparatively communistic country with ridiculous weather!
Archive listing for August 2008
Interesting article
Posted in 'Usa bashing' on August 1, 2008
I just stumbled across this article/blog entry and found it interesting.
One of the many awful legacies of the Bush Administration will be the way they aggravated rather than helped solve the very real threat of international terrorism. By failing to heed warnings before the attacks of 911 and then responding in almost exactly the wrong way after those attacks, they have turned—by action and rhetoric—a big problem into something worse than it needed to be.
While perhaps a bit simplistic, the article is quite good.
I was here (Seattle) on 11. Sept. 2001 and cannot adequately describe the pure rage of people. Bush quickly and cleverly tapped into this and, voilá, Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded, thousands of innocent lives were lost, and the US economy was severly impacted. Reminds us Germans of how Hitler came to power in 1933 as a result of the worldwide Depression and the injustices of the Versailles Treaty.
While a democracy appears to be the best form of government we human beings can devise, we must never underestimate the the extents to which an enraged democratic electorate can take us.
M:
Bush could have chosen to talk some sense into the people, and wait until they calmed down, but instead he jumped at the opportunity to start a war on the muslim world.
The rest of the world was outraged as well, but we all wanted to wait for UN's decision on the matter instead of taking matters into our own hands and making a decision which influenced all of the industrialised world, as if Usa had some right to make that decision for everyone.
And Usa believes in using force and violence to solve everything, while the rest of the world believes in diplomacy, and resolving problems like adults.
Ivana on 04 Aug, 2008 - 10:57 am:
Yes, but Bush does not appear even to qualify as an adult, especially when measured against the European leaders, of higher intelligence and educational attainments, with whom he occasionally meets (Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown etc.).
There is an expression in German which has its origin in the Bible: Wehe dem Lande, dessen König ein Kind ist: Woe to the land whose child is a king. Midt i blinken, right?
M on 04 Aug, 2008 - 11:44 am:
Well said. Bush is a ridiculous person and cannot be defined as an adult.
R on 04 Aug, 2008 - 12:33 pm:
bush is a muppet
More Vista issues
Posted in 'Vista' on August 3, 2008
I use both Dreamweaver and Photoshop quite frequently. Dreamweaver has been doing something that annoys me, and I have been thinking it was just a DW issue. But now I'm thinking it's actually a Vista issue.
What DW does is it never ever remembers the login and password for sites I'm working on. I've ticked the box where it says to save it, but every time I start DW I get an FTP error because for some reason it didn't save it. Every single time. It's not a big issue when I'm working on my own sites, because I know the username and password for them, but it's a bit annoying when I'm working on other sites, because then I have to look up the details.
And it's especially annoying if I've been doing stuff in DW and close it, thinking I'm finished for now, only to suddenly remember something I shoulda done, and then find that in the 5 seconds DW was closed it forgot the details for the site.
Sounds like a DW issue right?
Well I don't think so, because now Photoshop is doing it too. On my right in PS I like to have the character, history and layer windows open, because those are the ones I use most frequently. However, whenever I open PS it now goes back to the default windows, which are navigator, colour pallette, history and layers.
Google maps has a new feature where when you search for a street address you can go to 'street view' and see reasonably good photos of pretty much every street in Australia. Here's an example. And here's our house as it looks on google maps:
There is an outcry about the invasion of people's privacy, and the news on every channel is making a big fuss about it, because you can see people walking around in the street, getting into their cars, and see the rego plates on the cars and look at any house in any street you want.
It's ridiculous. So what if people can see our house? People walk past our house every single day. Should I be outraged because strangers dare look at our house? Or because they might look at me while I'm out in public?
And what's the problem with seeing rego plates on cars? You see rego plates every time you leave the house anyway. If you take photos of friends while you're out in public, chances are a random rego plate will be included in the photo. And what can you do with a photo of a rego plate anyway? There's nowhere to look up who owns the car. And even if there was, you don't need a photo of a rego plate to do it. Just go outside your door and within a minute or so you will see several rego plates.
In my opinion, if you're out in public, you have to expect people to look at you. It's not like you can see the insides of people's houses on Google maps. And even if you can see something in a window somewhere, it's no different to what any random person walking down the street would see.
The people who are going on about privacy issues need to lighten up.
Google product manager Andrew Foster said that because the company's mapping tool was based on technology developed in Australia, it was excited to bring Street View to the country.
"Google Maps has its origins as an Australian invention so we're thrilled to bring Street View here as one of the first countries in the world," he said.
R on 06 Aug, 2008 - 11:27 am:
Olivia says:
Aaron and Christine Boring, a Pittsburgh couple sued Google for "invasion of privacy". They
claimed that Street View made a photo of their home available online, and it diminished the value of their house, which was purchased for its privacy.
Olivia says:
Some bloggers have disputed these privacy concerns. For example, a photograph of the home of the Boring couple was already available on the county tax assessor's website prior to their lawsuit.
Olivia says:
the Boring couple, lol
Ivana on 09 Aug, 2008 - 12:23 am:
Streetview has also caused a hubbub over here, too... We live in a neighbourhood populated by many elderly hippies who have been here since the sixties, and some are concerned that the authorities might see the stands of marijuana (and other kinds of not so legal) plants that are not always thoroughly concealed in their yards.
But Streetview also has a feature that allows you to zoom into outer space and zoom down in another place in the world - much clearer pics than what the free version of Google Earth offers.
M on 09 Aug, 2008 - 1:17 am:
If they are growing illegal plants in full view of the street they are not terribly clever and they deserve to be caught in my opinion..
Camilla on 11 Aug, 2008 - 1:21 am:
hahaha thats so funny :D like ur new design btw :D
M on 11 Aug, 2008 - 1:50 am:
ta:)
Safety switches
Posted in 'Life in Oz' on August 7, 2008
All Australian buildings have what is called a safety switch. This means that if you were to try to electrocute yourself by means of sitting in a bath tub and lowering a toaster or any other electrical appliance into the water, or poke a knife into the toaster, or a power outlet, nothing would happen. The safety switch would be triggered in about 10 milliseconds as the leak to earth is detected, the safety swich would trigger, and the power would go out before you ever felt anything.
Today, this turned out to be very good news for my fish. I was doing some stuff in my 90 litre tank, and had lifted the hood, which has the lights in it, up for convenience. When I had finished and was putting the hood back in it's place, it slipped and one end of the light went in the water.
The safety switch was immediately triggered and my fish were spared from death by electrocution. They have no idea how lucky they are.
Btw I just realised that you have changed your rss or something because it is ages since I got any notifications in my RSS-reader.
M on 08 Aug, 2008 - 10:34 am:
Oh really? That would explain why the amount of dailt visitors suddenly started going down after we changed my blog... We tested the RSS feed after R changed it, and it was working, but maybe someone made changes to it. Will check it out. Thanks:)
R on 09 Aug, 2008 - 1:18 am:
Thats because it was moved to an rss folder. I'll put it back to where it was
Posted in 'The cats and the dog!' on August 11, 2008
We would prefer to keep our cats as indoor cats. Then we would never have to worry about them getting hit by cars. It's also illegal to let cats leave the property on their own. Unfortunately, life isn't that simple. The cats want to go outside. Especially Julie and Odo. Julie became a much happier cat after she was allowed to go out.
We have been talking about cat proofing the garden for a while, but have been unsure of how to do it. We contacted a company which specialises in nettings for custom cat enclosures, but they wanted $1500 for the netting alone. In addition there would have been all the bolts and screws. So we put it on hold - again.
But one day last week we went for a walk around the area and saw a dead cat by the side of the road. So we decided we needed to do something about the garden. R had an idea for a cheap alternative to the custom netting.
Instead of putting up a netting from the fence all the way to the roof like the netting people wanted to, he was sure he could simply cat proof the fence, and prevent them from jumping over it somehow. We got a lot of plastic mesh and aluminium strips which were made into 45 degree brackets (turns out you can't get 45 degree brackets pre-made). The brackets were then attached to the fence, and the mesh stretched along the fence, held at a 45 degree angle. The thought was that when the cats try to jump the fence, they would be met by mesh at the top, and cats can't climb upside down.
The trees had to be trimmed quite heavily to prevent the cats climbing up them and then over the mesh.
This corner was a possible weak link because of the gap between the shed and the fence which we put mesh over, but it then made it possible for the cats to climb up the mesh and onto the shed roof, so we had to find a way to prevent that too:
After we put all the mesh up and tried to think of every possibly escape route, it was time to let the cats out. Julie is the most desperate to leave the garden, so she was the real test. Here she is trying to find a way over the fence:
After Julie was first let out and realised there was no way over the fence, she sulked for about an hour, but then she realised that the garden isn't so bad, and made herself comfy:
Where the fence is straight it works perfectly. They cannot get over the mesh. The problem is the aircon units which they can stand on and then jump onto the shed roof. Both Odo and Julie managed to get out eventually, but we will secure the aircon units tomorrow.
The total cost was just a little over $200 and it took about 7 hours.
What is the exact reason(s) why cats are not allowed to leave their gardens? Is it for their own safety, so that neighbours won't be bothered or is it because of wildlife?
I just cannot imagine what it would be like if we got the same kind of laws in Norway.
Still, Norwegian authorities doesn't give a damn about cats. It's really a terrible situation (as you know). There are SO many cats that are abused, not cared for at all or not properly cared for and so on.
Undre on 11 Aug, 2008 - 3:18 am:
And, yes of course! Julie is a beauty! :D
M on 11 Aug, 2008 - 10:49 am:
The *main* reason is wildlife. Cats are the biggest killer of native wildlife. It's illegal to feed homeless cats because they are considered pests and a huge threat to the wildlife. A nice side effect of the law is that you don't get grumpy neighbours because your cat used their flower bed as a toilet:)
If your cat is found wandering around on its own, it will be caught and taken to the pound. If no one claims it within a few days it will be put to sleep. It's harsh, but it means that Australia has very few homeless cats.
There's also a limit of 2 cats per household, but you can get a permit for a maximum of 4 cats..
I think it would be good if Norway made a law like that.
Odo was caught a couple of years ago. He wasn't chipped at the time so they had no way of finding out who the owner was. R didn't know he had been caught so he put up posters with $1000 reward around the neighbourhood. Luckily someone at the pound lives in the area and recognised him, and R went and got him just in time.... He had to pay a $75 fine to get him out. All the cats are now chipped of course:)
And yes, Julie is very pretty:)
Ivana on 12 Aug, 2008 - 4:59 am:
What an excellent idea.
If it passes successfully through the initial trial period, it might be a good idea to spread the word so that other cats can enjoy the sights, scents and other stimulations of a yard.
So much better than having to spend their lives cooped up in house, as pleasant as the surroundings may be.
M on 12 Aug, 2008 - 11:17 am:
I intend to post the photos in a cat forum.
All the cats are safely contained in the garden now, except Julie. She keeps getting out somehow. We cannot fathom how she's doing it. And of course that means she can't get back in the garden, so instead of keeping her *in* the garden it's keeping her out.
Anonymous on 13 Aug, 2008 - 2:55 am:
Well, since cats aren't native to Australia it makes sense that they are a threat to wildlife.
I'm not sure if Norway needs a law telling people that they can have a maximum of 4 cats. I don't know of anyone in my neighbourhood who has more than two cats and I don't hear people elsewhere talking about "those people with X cats". Some people of course aren't able to manage their cat at all and end up with X cats because they breed out of control, but then animal welfare would be a good enough reason to stop this person from having cats.
I rather think there should be laws on spaying/neutering and microchipping and on how long a kitten should be allowed to stay with its mother. But I don't know how one should manage such laws.
M on 13 Aug, 2008 - 10:18 am:
I was talking about the law where they are not allowed to leave the property. It would be a hassle, so only people who are willing to go through the hassle of securing their property would get a cat, and because it's much easier to keep a desexed cat on the property, more people might choose to do that as well. And if it does wander off and gets caught, they can either have it chipped and be called when i happens, or be worried every time the cat is gone overnight and then have to call every vet and pound in the area.
Not allowing cats outside the property would be much easier than saying everyone has to spay/neuter their cat. How would they police it? Catch every cat in the area and check if they are desexed? That would only work on the males.
By not allowing them outside the property, it would be much easier, because then any cat they see wandering around is being let out illegally. They catch it and take it to the pound. Some of the cats they catch will have a home and will be claimed by their owner, but considering the amount of wild cats in Norway, most of them will be homeless. By making the owners pay a fine for having let the cat out, you ensure that only people who are willing to spend money on their cat owns one.
Of course all cats should be spayed/neutered, and it's easy to make a law saying everyone has to do it, but there's no way of policing it.
The kitten problem would be fixed either way, because the property has to be secured, or the cat has to be kept inside.
Plastic bags
Posted in 'Norway vs Australia' on August 12, 2008
In Norway a few supermarkets make you pay for plastic bags. They have the store logo printed on them. No other stores make you pay for plastic bags.
A lot of people complain about having to pay for them, they say the store should be paying them to carry around advertisements for the store.
Today I read that other supermarket chains in Norway have now decided to make customers pay for plastic bags, saying it's an environmental thing, despite customers grumbling about it. The price you pay for a single plastic bag is usually 50 øre (10¢), unless it's gone up since I was last there.
Here in Australia all plastic bags are free. At least they all were until very recently. Borders, a big chain of bookstores, recently started charging 10¢ for their plastic bags, saying "our plastic bags cost 10¢, because they cost the earth a lot more".
So at supermarkets you get free plastic bags, but as an environmentally friendly alternative you can buy canvas bags. Every single supermarket will have canvas bags readily available throughout the store. You can get plain ones with the supermarket logo on them, or themed colourful ones. They cost about $1 (5 kr) and can be used again and again. They're bigger and stronger than plastic bags, so you need fewer of them.
In Norway you don't have this option, at least not the last time I was there. I'm sure you can get canvas bags somewhere in Norway, but supermarkets don't generally offer any alternative to plastic bags. Which is what makes it pointless to make people pay for them. The whole point of making people pay for them is so more people will choose to not use plastic bags, thus reducing the amount of plastic bags which are produced and dumped and end up killing wildlife somewhere.
If you go to the bookstore, not using a plastic bag is a real alternative. You can easily carry one of two books home without the use of a bag. When you're doing shopping for the week or month, you can't realistically choose to not use bags.
So when people grumble about having to spend 10¢ on each plastic bag, I think they have a good point. It's not that it's so terribly expensive and they can't afford it, it's just that it's pointless. The stores are making a bigger profit from it, because everyone has to get the plastic bags, whether they are free or not.
No, not all supermarkets in Norway have been providingfree plastic bags for their customers. Where I live all the supermarkets and grocery stores have been charging money for their plastic bags for years (I can't remember them ever beeing free of charge). The only places where you still get plastic bags for "free" are in stores that do not sell food, but of course we are paying for them there as well, it's just that the cost of them is calculated into the prices of every item.
These days just about every supermarket and grocery store offer some type of canvas bag. Until very resently COOP was the only one who on some occations have been offering canvas bags.
I actually think it's a good thing that stores charge money for their plastic bags because that make people aware of the fact that plastic bags do cost money and also is a problem for the environment. If one does not want to pay the store money to advertise for them, then people should think of alternatives, and these days there are lots of them (and the stores make money on plastic bags whether you are told the exact price of them or not).
Some grocery stores have also and are offering paper bags as an alternative to plastic, but paper bags are not very friendly to the environment either. The local organic store has been offering bags made of cornstarch. They are compostable but I'm not sure about their environmental impact (which these types of bags obviously also have).
I have different types of canvas bags. Some are heavy duty ones made of cotton (unfortunately not organic cotton) and others are made of what I'm guessing is nylon. The nylon ones are very practical because they fold up very easily and do not weigh all that much so they are very easy to carry with me in my hand bag.
M on 13 Aug, 2008 - 10:10 am:
Maybe it was just where I used to live or maybe things have changed, but I was never offered an alternative to plastic bags but I still had to pay for them. No one ever said I had to pay for them because of the environment, everyone said it was because of the cost of making them.
I have seen paper bags offered as an alternative to the plastic bags in some areas, but I don't see what difference that would make. Sure enough, they can be recycled, but you still pay for them every time you shop and they still have to keep producing them. Plastic bags are biodegradable and recyclable as well these days so paper isn't that much different, except that it prolly won't suffocate wildlife which comes in contact with it.
I always thought the point of making people pay for them is so that more people will choose a cheaper, more environmentally friendly alternative. At least that's why they've started doing it here. So as long as you have no environmentally friendly alternative, there is no point in making people pay for plastic bags.
It doesn't help no matter how aware people are that they're damaging the environment by buying plastic bags when they can't easily choose an alternative. They still have to buy the plastic bags. Some people don't care enough about the environment to go to a different store to get a canvas bag, they'll continue to choose the plastic bags because it's convenient.
Eugene Miller on 14 Aug, 2008 - 1:08 am:
The revenue made from the 10-cent levy thats been proposed should fund environmental projects. It is a way to discourage their use but there really should just be a ban of them; their are already so many in existance, there just shouldn't be anymore produced and they shouldnt be given out. Not even these so called "Degradable Bags" that I have seen here in Melbourne.
By the way, dette er en godt blog; jeg liker lesing et; et er veldig interessant aa leser a Norwegians perspective and impression of Australia and where you once lived. I live here in Aus, but I am planning to move there soon. I should take some inspiration from you and blog the same way you do when I am there, comparing the two countries.
Undre on 14 Aug, 2008 - 6:31 am:
None of the money that we have to pay for plastic bags helps the environment, but if one has to pay for something one is more likely to think twice about buying it. So I would assume that people in general use less plastic bags by putting more stuff in one plastic bag instead of getting one or two extra ones when they have to pay for each plastic bag.
Canvas bags are a rather new phenomenon here in Norway. COOP has had some sometimes and I think ICA has had some too, but canvas bags etc have not been available on a regular basis. During this summer canvas bags have been made available at COOP, ICA, Meny and Kiwi.
Paper bags aren't that friendly to the environment because they are heavier and therefore you can't get as many pr m3 as with plastic bags.
M on 14 Aug, 2008 - 10:31 am:
Eugene: It's funny you should mention it. I read a story at news.com.au last night that Victoria is now doing a 1 month trial where people will pay for plastic bags at supermarkets, and any profit made from it will be used to fund environmental projects:)
And yes, you should blog about Norway, that would be so much fun to read:) Send me the link to your blog when you set it up:)
Undre: Yes, that's what I thought too. They should use the money to help the environment tho. And it's good that canvas bags are now made available. I didn't see *any* when I was there in January. R says they have been available here for about 10 years or so...
Lothiane on 21 Aug, 2008 - 8:29 pm:
I don't think I've ever been to a Norwegian supermarket and not been charged for the plastic bag. I could use a canvas bag, but the point for me is that I use the plastic bags for throwing rubbish away. If I didn't have these plastic bags, I would have to buy them somewhere anyway. In my building we have to use bags before we throw our rubbish out. (We have a rubbish chute.)
I was told yesterday at my local shop that they'll be starting with new, environmental friendly plastic bags. I think they'll cost 1 kr more than what they do now (75 øre). I don't approve of that at all, because I think this is just another way of charging more money of their customers. So... I might have to find another way of getting rid of my rubbish.
I was always charged for the plastic bags in Norway too. Usually they would ask how many I wanted, which was sometimes a problem because I didn't know how many I would need. But sometimes they wouldn't ask and I would 'forget' to ask for it, and after I had finished paying for everything I would say 'oh I forgot, can I have a plastic bag?' and they would give it to me for free. They're not gonna make people go back and pay 75 øre :)
Another good thing about Australia is that the checkout operator puts everything straight into a bag, so you don't have to guess at how many bags you need:)
The pay for plastic bags trial started a few days ago, and everyone is having a big bitch about it, saying they are boycotting the stores which make you pay for plastic bags, and asking what they will use for bin liners etc. In some areas they ask you to put your rubbish in plastic bags, but in other areas you don't really need to. It's just convenient because it means you don't have to wash the bin every time you empty it.
We've started using canvas bags now, which presents the problem of what to do with kitty litter once we run out of old plastic bags....
Animals matter
Posted in 'Random stuff' on August 13, 2008
The cabinet of the Fijian Government has just approved a decision to support a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW) at the United Nations. Fiji is the first Pacific Island nation to endorse the development of this important initiative.
The Declaration will be global recognition that animals matter, can feel pain and experience suffering. And that all of us - from individuals to governments - have a responsibility to put an end to cruelty around the world.
The Australian government has a Department of Climate Change. Norway doesn't, prolly because 30% of the Norwegian population doesn't believe climate change is man made. Their government reflects this view. Even the politicians who claim to care about global warming, are not willing to be inconvenienced to do anything for the environment. 'We care, but only as long as we don't have to spend any time or effort doing anything.'
Another reason to like Australia.
On a different note, water restrictions were lifted from 'extreme' to 'high' on July 31. The daily target per person has been raised from 140 litres to 170 litres. R and I have been using about 110 litres each.
Under extreme restrictions, we were not allowed to use a hose at all at any time for any reason. We were allowed to clean the house, car and bins, but only using a bucket and only if our health and/or safety was at risk. Showers were limited to 4 minutes per person per day, and everyone was encouraged to recycle shower water for the garden, and to install water saving shower heads, taps and toilets.
Under high restrictions, everything is pretty much the same. The biggest difference is that we're now allowed to use a hose. But only at certain times. We live in an even-numbered house, so we're allowed to wash the car with the hose between 4 and 4:30 every Sunday. We're also allowed to use the hose to water the garden every Wednesday and Sunday between 4 and 4:30.
For newly established gardens the rule is:
For such premises, water from the reticulated (town) supply system is not permitted to be used for the watering of newly established gardens and lawns except where the watering is by hand held hose and where the watering occurs within the following hours:
for 1 hour only on the day of establishment;
and for 1 hour daily (between 4.00 am and 7.00 am or between 4.00 pm and 7.00 pm) for 14 days (including Mondays) after the date of establishment (receipt for installation or purchase required).
We installed a garden pond yesterday and used the hose to fill it. I was curious if that was allowed, so I looked that up too. It turns out it's not allowed:
For such premises, water from the reticulated (town) supply system is not permitted to be used for the filling or the topping up of fish ponds, frog ponds or outdoor aquariums except where the water is used from a bucket filled directly from a tap.
I find that rather strange. I guess none of the people in charge of the restrictions bothered to actually use their heads and so they didn't realise a pond holds the same amount of water no matter what you use to fill it.
You can read about the restrictions in detail here.
I think the reason is that between turning the tap on and pointing the hose end at the pond, and between finished and going back to the tap to turn off the water, there will be water wasted, that would not be if it was bucketted to the pond from the tap. Of course, we wouldn't do it like that, but there are some twits out there who are both lazy and non-caring.
Mark on 22 Aug, 2008 - 7:48 pm:
"30% of the Norwegian population doesn't believe climate change is man made."
Maybe 30% of the Norwegian population have done a bit of research and managed to find the truth behind the manipulation of figures, graphs and charts that have been presented to the public by the scaremongering green media.
It doesn't take much research to find out that real scientists are turning their backs on the IPCC's findings and predictions, none of which, by the way, have ever come true.
There is climate change, nobody doubts that, there always has been and always will be climate change, but man isn't causing it.
Figures released today of RSS MSU satellite data show that global temperatures warmed by 0.295 degrees C between 1979 and 2008. Less than a third of one degree C is hardly worth getting excited about. Add that to the fact that global temperatures have been falling for the past few years and are predicted to continue to drop despite a rise in atmospheric CO2.
Climate change is happening and there's not a single thing you, or any government can do to alter it one tiny bit.
R on 22 Aug, 2008 - 11:04 pm:
"Less than a third of one degree C is hardly worth getting excited about."
Oh really?
It isnt about how much it has risen, it's the fact that it has risend and is continuing to rise.
According to a research report released by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) by the end of the next century earth may warm by 1.8ºF to 6.3ºF (1°-3.5°C) easily making it warmer than any time since the evolution of humans and adding to that and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years. The record year for climate so far has been 1998, when melting snow killed 4,000 people in China, 1,400 in India and 1,00 in Pakistan. Typhoons killed 500 in the Philippines, and monsoons killed 1,300 in Bangladesh. Last year torrential rain in Venezuela caused floods that killed 30,000 people, and this year thousands have died in flooding in Mozambique. Global Warming may have already killed 100,000 people in the past three years and threatens to lead to mass migration, disease, poverty and even war. Famous Historian David Keys says "There have always been severe weather events, but the number and severity has increased in recent years." He adds that exceptionally severe weather events have claimed between 50,000 and 100,000 lives since 1997. In addition, up to 300 million people have been displaced and made homeless.
Such a global rise in temperature would result in considerable climatic changes on earth. This in turn would have devastating effects on society and ecosystems. Global Warming is occurring right now too! Even within the next 20 years, different regions of the world will likely see longer droughts, more flooding and more frequent extreme weather changes. Increased global warming will also affect natural habitats and water resources. Human well-being, including business and economic development, could well be at risk. The most serious impacts will most likely include human health, agriculture, and natural habitats.
-------
Now, you don't think it is caused by humans?
The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations" via an enhanced greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.
These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.
Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century. This range of values results from the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as models with differing climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a thousand years even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. The delay in reaching equilibrium is a result of the large heat capacity of the oceans.
Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the concentration of various greenhouse gases, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. Molecule for molecule, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but its concentration is much smaller so that its total radiative forcing is only about a fourth of that from carbon dioxide. Some other naturally occurring gases contribute small fractions of the greenhouse effect; one of these, nitrous oxide (N2O), is increasing in concentration owing to human activity such as agriculture. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 20 million years ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced approximately three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, in particular deforestation.
The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 385 parts per million (ppm) by volume. Future CO2 levels are expected to rise due to ongoing burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments, but may be ultimately limited by the availability of fossil fuels. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach this level and continue emissions past 2100, if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively used.
So if you think humanity isnt the cause of the problem, you have your head firmly in the sand, which is fine, you can do that if you want to Mark, but don't try to spread your reactive denial due to fear of the truth.
The conclusion is, that humans have caused it, and if temps continue to rise, they will reach a point that will be devastating to the planet.
Tip: watch An Inconvenient Truth - it will help you to stop denying the obvious. I know you deny it out of fear, because it feels a lot better and not so scarey if it wasnt happening, but it is. Deal with it.
Lothiane on 23 Aug, 2008 - 5:43 am:
Watch 'An inconvenient truth'? You mean the movie (some would call it sci-fi) they can't show in British schools without a disclaimer, because of all the errors in it? (The High Court in London, October 2007.) Basically, the Judge is saying Al Gore's movie is just political opinion, not scientific fact, and it should be viewed as any other piece of political propaganda.
R, Thank you for your reply, it is, without doubt, a very interesting reply.
First of all, though, thank you for removing your initial reply where you referred to me as an
idiot. I did read it and wasn't too impressed, (yes because we do have to "impress you" don't we? Pompous arse... ) but as you've removed it I'll say no more about that.
I've read so much over the past few years, from both sides, and even if you discount the
actual facts, this man made global warming thing just doesn't add up.
I'm sure, though, that you'd want me to address some of the points you copied and pasted into your reply.
"It isnt about how much it has risen, it's the fact that it has risend and is continuing to rise."
Yes, as I said earlier, nobody doubts or denies that there has been global warming, I say has been because their hasn't been a net rise in global temperatures for ten years. Global
temperatures are now falling, not continuing to rise.
By your statement you seem to imply that global temperatures have remained constant for.. well, how long? Temperatures have gone up and down more times than an Olympic trampoline athlete and will continue to do so long after we're dead and buried (or in your case, recycled).
Let's not get too bogged down by those figures you quote from the IPCC, for example, "...earth may warm by 1.8ºF to 6.3ºF". Yes, but it equally may not, and as temperatures are falling, the IPCC are going to be once more proved to be wrong - it happens too often these days, I wonder why?
One point is easy to argue against, "10 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years." No. After an error was pointed out, NASA GISS data was officially changed and now 1934 has been accepted as being warmer than 1998, the order then continues; 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939, 1954, 1987, 2001, 1986, 1946, 1991. Again, there has been no net global warming for ten years.
You then go on to list some natural disasters implying that they were caused by man made
global warming. Is there proof that they wouldn't have happened if we all rode bicycles and
stopped using plastic bags at the supermarket?
Look at these historical events:
# India, 1775: Tsunami (60,000 dead)
# Japan, 1826: Tsunami (27,000 dead)
# Bangladesh, 1876: Cyclone (200,000 dead)
# China, 1876-78: Drought (9 million dead)
# China, 1881: Typhoon (300,000 dead)
# Indonesia, 1883: Tsunami (36,000 dead)
# Huayan Kou, China, 1887: Yang-tse Kiang flooding (one million dead)
# Bangladesh, 1970: Sea flood (200-500,000 dead)
How many of those events, do you think, were caused by global warming?
How many of those events, if they happened today, would be blamed on global warming?
Recent studies have concluded that there is no increase of severe weather events.
You're happy to quote ice core data stating that CO2 levels have never been higher. Even if that were true, and that's disputed, you leave out the fact that ice core data consistently shows the CO2 increases come about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases. The CO2 - temperature link has been disproved many times.
Even the IPCC believes that warming directly resulting from manmade CO2 emissions is on the order of 1 degree C for a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere (and many think it to be less).
On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-
General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters. The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists.
Now, I'm going to stop quoting from you and responding with counter-claims/facts. There's no point. We've both got our own ideas as to what's right and wrong, and to be honest, neither of us are likely to change our minds pretty soon.
Thanks for the advice to watch "An Inconvenient Truth". I will at some point get around to watching it, but as I'm not really interested in political fiction, I'd rather watch something with at least some facts in it. Lothaine's comment sums up the general feeling about that movie and at this stage I need say no more.
How about this, all in the news this week:
• Landholders and motorists on the Central New South Wales ranges have had to handle the coldest winter outbreak for 15 years.
• Falls Creek has now exceeded its 20 year average snowfall and the forecast is for more snow for the remainder of this week.
• Southern New South Wales is having its coldest weather since 2005, with parts of the
highlands blanketed in snow.
• Australia experienced record demand for electricity late yesterday as cold weather swept
across the most-populous southeastern states.
• It has been the coldest start to August in 13 years, bringing heavy snowfalls in the ski fields and record low temperatures elsewhere.
That's all easy information to find if you care to spend a few minutes looking for it, as are all
the things I write about here. There's a massive amount of information out there from credible sources that dispute the information the IPCC are churning out. It's really worth opening your mind and doing some unbiased research before coming to the conclusion that 'we're all doomed' once more unless we all cut down on CO2 emissions, or more likely, pay more CO2 taxes, which is what governments want us to do.
While you trawl the Internet looking for global warming (by the way, that's so ten years ago, most greenies call it climate change now as it's more convenient) you'll find some interesting
things about "global warming", here's just a few:
......................................................................
Loch Ness monster dying.
"Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and (Nessie hunter Robert) Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming."
......................................................................
Autumn leave colours becoming more dull: (2005)
"Already this year, throughout the Northeast, the foliage has been late, and, some say,
unspectacular. Scientists at the University of New Hampshire project that shifts in the climate
caused by global warming will progressively dull the leaves throughout southern New England and New York over the next century."
............................................................................
Autumn leave colours becoming more colourful: (2004)
"Climate change models for the UK suggest we are likely to have hotter and drier summers,
which will encourage the kind of colours you normally see in a New England fall."
............................................................................
Global warming causes an ice age: (2004)
"...the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice
age."
.....................................................................
Expect smaller brains with global warming: (2007)
"It seems that colder climates created bigger brains that adapted to cope with cold, but some scientists now fear that global warming trends could be reversing this evolution. Who’d have thought smaller human brains would be a result of warmer climates?"
..........................................................................
Global warming increases HIV: (2008)
"Climate change will trigger a chain of events which is likely to increase the stress on society
and result in higher vulnerability to diseases including HIV," said Prof Tarantola, due to address an HIV forum in Sydney."
...........................................................................
Global warming makes it easier to grow wine in Germany: (2006)
"Global warming may threaten the world with environmental disaster, but it could be a boon for German wine-makers, claim economists at Princeton University in the US."
..............................................................................
Global Warming Means no More French Wine: (2006)
"Global Warming will mean that climates and regional weather will shift and therefore France
will not be able to grow grapes..."
.............................................................................
Global warming causes a decline in African circumcision rates: (2007)
"But it's been 14 years since a circumcision ceremony has been held here. There are now
40,000 uncircumcised young men, some in their late 20s, waiting their turn. All of the eligible young women, tired of waiting, have married older men (multiple wives are allowed), so there are no wives for the new initiates.
I could never have imagined that climate change would have such an effect on an entire
society."
.................................................................................
And just yesterday:
"Blood Meant for Transfusions Can Get Contaminated Due to Global Warming"
..................................................................................
How much do you have to read before you start to seriously question all these claims?
What will 'global warming' be blamed for next?
Finally, Data from all four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) released in February this year show that the world cooled between 0.65-0.75C in 2007. As the world warmed by that amount over the past hundred years or so, bang goes any 'global warming'.
I won't go on to patronise you in the way you did to me, "I know you deny it out of fear,
because it feels a lot better and not so scarey if it wasnt happening". I deny it because I've spent hundreds of hours researching the facts and then made up my own mind as to what's actually happening!
M on 23 Aug, 2008 - 10:50 am:
So Mark, you are basically saying that you think humans can release an endless amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and it will have no effect on the delicate balance of the earth whatsoever?
I guess that gives you a good excuse to not give a shit about what you do to the environment. How handy!
So let's say hypothetically that polluting endlessly has no effect on the earth itself... So what? Humans and animals will still be better off if we reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Just look at Beijing! They seriously need more environmentally friendly cars.
So whether you believe climate change is man made or not, you still have no good excuse to go around polluting and littering.
R on 23 Aug, 2008 - 11:27 am:
Mark, you are an idiot, if you think GW is even up for debate. (by the way, global warming is a different to "climate change") It's like debating whether the earth is flat ot not.
I'm not even going to thorougly read your long-winded reply, because quite simply, it isn't up for debate. You keep your head in the sand where you're comfy, and don't you dare watch the Inconvenient truth movie! - Actually, your admission that you haven't seen is is classic closed mind behaviour - You won't even look at the other side of the argument, because you want to believe it isn't true.
idiot.
(sorry, not really trying to "impress you") because of your holier than thou pompous attitude. Perhaps if you had approched the subject in a less condescending manner, you might have gotten somewhere. - thinking you were embarrassing me by stating I'd posted a comment calling you an idiot and then removed it pfffft - I removed it because i thought it was a bit harsh considering you hadn't actually proven you were an idiot, and that you might just be one of the sadly mis-informed. But now.....)
Sarah on 23 Aug, 2008 - 11:35 am:
"I deny it because I've spent hundreds of hours researching the facts and then made up my own mind as to what's actually happening!"
Hundreds of hours researching or hundreds of hours looking for things to suggest it isn't real because you are afraid of the truth?
LOL i think everyone knows these days that it's real. The days when you could deny it are over. Mark, I think you're a crack-pot and I put you up there with the flat earth people and the moon hoaxists.
You have fun now!
JJ on 23 Aug, 2008 - 4:03 pm:
amazing what you find...
"The earth is really flat!"
"We didnt really land on the moon!"
"Aliens are living among us!"
"Global Warming is a conspiracy!"
M: As I know Mark, I can assure you he isn't okay with polluting and littering. Why would anyone think that just because you don't believe that man is the reason behind climate changes, then you think it's okay to pollute and throw your litter in nature?
The rest of the replies here are sad reading. I wonder who has their head in the sand.
If you think polluting doesn't do anything, then there's no good reason to try not to?
I'll just have to take your word for Mark's behaviour, but I do find it very strange in this day and age that there are still people out there who think that the huge amount of greenhouse gases we release will do nothing to the earth's atmosphere, especially people who claim to be informed and have done research. It's the kind of attitude I would expect from 3rd world countries and people with no education.
Try to claim that climate change isn't man made here in Australia and you'll be laughed at by about 95% of the population.
R on 23 Aug, 2008 - 6:16 pm:
Lothaine: Because then they don't have to change what they do, or feel responsible. it is obvious that man is the reason behind climate change. This has been debated before, in many different forums by people a lot more intelligent than Mark. Spouting it here doesn't change anything.
Mark thinks he knows better than 90% of the scientists out there. He can believe what he wants. You can't stop someone believeing what they WANT to believe, no matter what the facts are, they will always see a way to get past facts. It's like religion.
You see, people like Mark don't have to feel guilty for driving their air-polluting cars, they don't have to feel bad about anything that contributes to green house gasses, because it's all a conspiracy as far as they're concerned.
"We're not to blame, therefore we don't have to change our ways OR do anything to fix it!"
Lothiane on 23 Aug, 2008 - 8:36 pm:
"If you think polluting doesn't do anything, then there's no good reason to try not to?"
This is what I don't understand at all. Even though I don't believe that man made co2 is the cause of climate changes, doesn't mean I don't care about the nature or the environment.
But.. I'm so happy that you have talked me straight, to have your unprejudiced and matter-of-fact opinions really has opened my eyes. You obviously know Mark so much better than me. Mark, I'm sorry, you shouldn't come over any more, the plane ticket should be cancelled so we can spend the money on carbon credits instead, and make Al Gore a bit richer. That way he can go out an play with his jet some more. And people who live far out in the country side where there are no buses or trains, should just quit their jobs and stay home to starve... at least that way they don't have to feel "guilty" for driving a car.
The best way to discuss something is obviously not to read what they're saying and then tell them they're idiots. It's so mature, too.
This hardly needs discussing by us. It's an established fact and has been for a very long time. It's like discussing whether the earth is flat or round. Anyone who thinks it's flat is an idiot. Same applies.
Oh, and why bother caring about it, seeing as you and mark think that man doesn't affect it?
pffft.
M on 24 Aug, 2008 - 11:24 am:
Well excuse me, but Mark came into MY blog with his 'you're so stupid for thinking GW is man made' attitude, when the issue clearly wasn't even up for debate in this blog entry. In his second comment he had an extremely arrogant 'I'm better than you' tone throughout the comment.
So if he comes into my blog with that kind of attitude, then I have no objection to him being made to feel like an idiot.
He's a typical pom too - all unhappy, rude and whingy.
The weather
Posted in 'Life in Oz' on August 21, 2008
While I was living in Norway, I never let the weather bother me. As a teenager it did bother me, but I realised that it was too inconvenient to let the weather affect my mood, seeing as Norway has some 200 rainy days, and about 10 sunny days a year. So I refused to let it affect me at all, and even when it would rain non stop for 6 weeks, I wouldn't think anything of it.
Things certainly have changed. Brisbane has an average of 243 sunny days a year, and so I have gotten used to getting up to warmth and sunshine. It's great:)
The only problem are the days when it's overcast or raining. I get sooo depressed and grumpy and don't feel like doing anything. If I have to do something in the garden I can't stand to stay outside for more than about 2 minutes at a time. All I wanna do is sit in front of my computer and try to not look out the window.
Perhaps you have a case of Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), which some people successfully alleviate with light therapy lamps placed in various parts of their houses.
Might be a good idea to spend the summer in Norway. So beautiful, with the midnight sun, especially if it doesn't rain!
Hope you are feeling better soon.
M on 27 Aug, 2008 - 12:57 pm:
Nah, I only get it while it's overcast or raining, as soon as it's sunny again I'm fine:)
Either way, I'm better off here in Australia than in Norway, as Norway gets a lot more rain and cloudy days than we do here:):)
Also, not only do such lamps not exist here in Australia, they are unheard of!
R on 27 Aug, 2008 - 1:09 pm:
seasonal affective disorder??? what's that??
It's sunny just about every day here, especially in winter. Winter in this state is clear blue skies every day for months, so much so, that the grass goes brown from lack of rain. Rain comes in summer, (we're in a tropical climate) and even in summer, it's sunny all day, and then the late humid afternoon brings a spectacular electical storm with heaps of rain for about half an hour, then it goes as quickly as it came and leaves the roads steaming!
That's the typical weather for here, although lately it's been a bit messed up, but I'm sure it'll return to normal. It seems normal now actually, it's winter and the last 4 weeks have been cloudless and about 22 degrees every day dropping to about 11 over night. Today is a little cloudy, but it's 23 degrees outside.
Ivana on 27 Aug, 2008 - 3:44 pm:
Sounds nice. I love spectacular thunderstorms. Wish you could send a few in our direction.
Is the terrible drought now pretty much over?
Another question, if it's okay..... I see that many houses in Australia have metal roofs. These are almost never seen in western Europe and only rarely in the US. I imagine they must be quite practical. Do they have long lifespans, and do they require much maintenance?
M on 27 Aug, 2008 - 3:50 pm:
It's not the most common type of roof, but it's used a lot. It requires no mainenance, and reflects a lot of heat, which is the main reason for using them.
Yes, the thunderstorms are awesome:) I love them.
The dams are up to about 40-45% percent now, so yeah, the worst of the drought seems to be over. They were at 16% at the lowest.
Hateful Usatians
Posted in 'Usa bashing' on August 22, 2008
I think we have to face the fact that Americans hate each other much more than most other nationalities–as is reflected in our murder rates. We are one of the most deeply religious and homicidal societies on earth. Even in 2001 you were five times as likely to be murdered by an American as by an arab terrorist. And we love to kill children more than ANY other nation. I think the consensus here is fairly representative of American society and it is overwhelmingly in favor of giving teachers the power of deadly force. And this is a lesson that will not be lost on their students–it is pointless trying to reason with an American, even if you are an authority figure, and you should always be prepared to kill. In our society, power and respect comes not from education but from the barrel of a gun.
I got this quote from Randi who got it from a comment in a news article about how some teachers in Usa are now allowed to carry guns to work.
How sad.
this 2% of the planet's population is also responsible for 20% of the worlds human-contributed greenhouse gasses which are contributing to Global Warming.
Ivana on 29 Aug, 2008 - 12:10 am:
Before I moved to the US 20+ years ago, I had also heard and read such information. I imagined prople driving up and down the streets with shotguns on their laps, just waiting to pop someone off. Was relieved to see that this was not the case.
Yes, murder is a problem over here, and incidents are to a surprisingly high degree concentrated in sections of larger industrial US cities. At the risk of sounding racist, blacks have been shown to be the perpetrators of the majority of such urban violence. Black on black murder rates are disproportionately and frighteningly high compared to other ethnic groups within the US population.
It is very sad: by their mid-30s, 6 out of 10 black men who had dropped out of high school had spent time in prison (source: NYT article, 20 March 2006).
M on 29 Aug, 2008 - 10:54 am:
It's strange how the solution to every problem in Usa is to get more guns, even when guns are the problem in the first place. Strange logic.
'People shoot each other in schools. Hey I know! Let's give them guns!'
Ivana on 30 Aug, 2008 - 2:41 am:
One might say that guns are written into US history.
Article II of the US Constitution states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Understandable when the early Americans were fighting off the British and Indians, but not in the present time.
That said, I have rarely seen a gun over here, except in contexts of hunting. Murders by guns seem to be mostly connected to poverty and/or minorities in inner urban environments.
And the issue of guns in inner urban schools specifically and exclusively has been the focal point of the ongoing discussion.
Even if guns were to be banned, people would probably find ways to get or make them, as they did during the Prohibition with alcohol.
M on 30 Aug, 2008 - 10:44 am:
Yes, I don't think banning guns alone will make Usatians stop shooting each other. Something fundamental about their attitude needs to change.
I used to know many Usatians online and what they all had in common was their very low threshold for wishing people dead. Some of them admitted to owning guns 'for protection' and said if they were robbed they would shoot to kill, not to injure.
I find that messed up. It was like they *wanted* to kill someone. If I was robbed and had a gun on me, I would shoot to injure, and only if I felt my life was at risk. If I thought the robber would just grab my bag and run I would let him, I wouldn't even consider shooting them. If I had capsicum spray on me I would be more inclined to use that over a gun.
What I can see lacking among some Usatians is a basic respect for other people's right to live.
And another thing Usatians seem incapable of comprehending is that if they are being robbed, and the robber is pointing a gun at them, there's no way they would be able to get their gun out and shoot the robber. As soon as they start fiddling to get their gun out, the robber will shoot them. The robber is guaranteed to not stand around and let himself be shoot. I explained this to my Usatian friendsw and they just blocked it out, like the were incapable of considering the possibility that the gun wouldn't help them defend themselves.
Ivana on 30 Aug, 2008 - 1:35 pm:
Yes, although I don't quite agree that Americans have a "low threshold for wishing people dead," as was the case with your online acquaintances.
My experience has been that Americans are mostly peaceful, friendly, generous and caring people. Of course, there are crazies and loonies, too. But only once have I seen a really violent act over here, and it was a fight outside a bar in Chicago.
I can't think of any of our friends who have stated that they own guns, although there may be an occasional one stashed away in their closets...
But one thing that DOES bother me is the amount of violence on American TV. People over here, particularly teenagers and adults of lower educational and socioeconomic levels seem to enjoy watching car chases, crashes and shootings on TV. It has always been that way both on TV and in film, going back to the early Westerns in the 1920s.
I have travelled quite a lot in this country and simply don't find Americans violent. However, of course, it is wise to be on one's guard in the poorer districts of larger cities, or avoid such areas completely.
Ivar on 01 Sep, 2008 - 3:38 pm:
As in Ivana's case I have found most Americans to be friendly as well, and compared to Norwegians they are much more open and friendly, even to strangers.
Indianapolis (where I live) is a relatively violent city, however from what I read and see on the news, most shootings are related to drugs and other illegal activities. Unfortunately that doesn't stop a stray bullet from hitting innocents etc., but staying out of the areas where there are drug trafficking etc. would significantly reduce the risks...
M, when you say "If I was robbed and had a gun on me, I would shoot to injure, and only if I felt my life was at risk." it leads me to believe that you have limited experience around guns (I may be wrong, but that is what interpret). To aim to injure when someone with a gun is robbing you (and you feel that you are at risk) is to ask for someone to kill you. First off a leg or arm is almost always moving, in addition to being a very small target, secondly and even more importantly is it that the robber may still be able to shoot back at you! If you are being robbed and decide to shoot back (asking for more trouble IMO) you should aim for the body part that it is most likely you will hit (in a tens and stressed situation as a robbery is), and that is the upper body.
With that said, the best way to avoid getting killed is: Don't carry a gun. Even though carrying a gun may stop most people from robbing you, the one time they get desperate enough, it may also be fatal because of the gun.
"best way to avoid getting killed is: Don't carry a gun"
You shouldn't have to AVOID getting killed! that's ridiculous.
Here people who rob your house (which is what I assume you're talking about) do not carry guns. People in Aus don't carry guns. No reason to. Usa is just messed up. I do wonder from time to time if the people who live there actually know that the rest of the world is laughing at them, and have abosolutely zero respect for the country. Pity, cos it's not all the people's fault, ... but don't get me started on the people...
M on 01 Sep, 2008 - 4:21 pm:
Ivar: Yes, it might be difficult to shoot someone and not kill them, but my point was that I wouldn't WANT to kill them and I wouldn't want them to die, unlike the Usatians I discussed it with.
And the guy was white, middle class.
Both you and Ivana keep saying it's a drug related thing, or mostly among black people, but I know white Usatians who admitted to owning a gun because they were robbed once, and said they needed a gun to protect themselves, failing to see that the gun wouldn't protect them at all.
Again a white middle class guy.
When I talked to a Usatian friend once someone had crashed his truck, and he loved his truck, and he repeatedly said he wanted the person to die for crashing it. I finally questioned him about whether he meant it or he was just saying it because he was angry, and he said he meant it - he seriously wanted someone dead over a truck.
Again, white middle class.
And like R said, people in Australia and Europe see no need to carry guns. Robbers rarely if ever carry guns. Police officers in some countries don't even carry guns. So there's something about Usa which is messed up, when so many people choose to own guns, and people see no problem with teachers carrying guns, in fact they see carrying a gun as a solution to heaps of problems.
Ivana on 02 Sep, 2008 - 1:02 am:
As with many things in life, it is a question of viewing matters objectively and in a proper perspective.
There are elevated incidents of violence in certain areas and within certain ethnic groups over here, we have established this.
Closer to Moder Norge and on much firmer ground for you: While learning Norwegian, I have been regularly reading your newspaper Aftenposten. If I am to believe what I read, there are almost daily incidents of stabbings and/or shootings (yes, shootiings, mamma mia!) on the eastern side of Oslo, some, but not all, apparently carried out by immigrants, many of whom have Norwegian passes ("av utenlandsk opprinnelse" as the descriptions often read).
Based on the logic you use above, may I assume that Ålesund, Hammerfest and Flekkefjord are likely equally violent places and that there is something about Norway "which is messed up?"
R on 02 Sep, 2008 - 1:58 am:
Ivana, I think you need to realise that things are not either black or white.
M didn't say that there is no violence in Norway did she?
You should forget trying to defend Usa or the majority of the people that live there. You won't suceeed.
There are murders in Australia too, Australia was founded by Convicts. Its homicide rate is 1.8 per 100,000 population.
The United States was founded by religious zealots. It's homicide rate is 6.3 per 100,000. Almost 400% greater than Australia.
That shows that Usa is messed up, and the inhabitants are not very nice to each other, just as the article described. Face it. You chose to live in one of the worst countries on the planet. That's your choice. Usa sucks and the world is laughing at it, not admiring it.
M on 02 Sep, 2008 - 10:56 am:
Ivana: Yes, there's crime in every country, but Usa is ridiculous.
Over the last 15 years, Usa has had between 30 and 40 school shootings. A few other countries have had ONE school shooting in the same amount of time, and Germany is the only country which has had 2. Most countries have never had school shootings.
In most countries, kids don't go through metal detectors to get into their school building.
Ivana on 02 Sep, 2008 - 3:34 pm:
R: while I am not as impressively armed with facts and figures as you are (or would like us to believe), I will assure you that my family would not remain here for one more hour if things were as dystopian as you suggest.
With regard to your second paragraph, it is not for you to judge whether I am successful in persuading anybody on this or any other point. It is up to each individual listener to make her or his own decision.
M: I believe we can cordially agree to disagree. I do admire your blog and believe you are a remarkable young woman who weaves a rich and varied tapestry of narrative. Time to start thinking of writing a book!
M on 02 Sep, 2008 - 3:36 pm:
Yes, let's:)
And thanks:)
R on 02 Sep, 2008 - 5:04 pm:
Ivana:
I feel I am free to offer advice on anything I want. Call it judging whether you'll be successful or not if you like, and feel free to judge whether or not it is for me to judge anything or not. But if I see futility, I like to point it out. I am free to do that, and I don't care if I succeed or fail. Even in failure one is successful in finding out what doesn't work.
However, you do not know me, so you don't know whether it is for me to judge the success of anything or not. I may be an idiot, or I may be a Mensa member... you don't know and you don't know what experience I have had. The point is, you can’t really say whether it's for me to judge or not.
Anyway, I am not impressively armed with facts an figures any more than you are if you know how to use google, and I would assume you do, so I care not what the "us" you speak of believes or doesn't believe, I'd rather the attention was on the content of my statement, not about me and whether I am armed with facts and figures.
On your final point, your family remains there because you have not experienced that which is highly superior, and/or had the means to move, or haven’t cared enough to.
I see USA as one of the worst countries to live in. I have driven all over it, and found it and the people to be severely lacking. Most people outside the USA dislike the USA and find the people from USA obnoxious loud and arrogant. I would guess you only defend it because you live there and do not want to admit living with a deficiency, which is fair enough. If you want to continue debating whether USA is great or not, I'm quite happy to, I have been doing it for 19 years, and have yet to be shown that it is. Pick a topic... education? Racism? Ignorance? Government attitudes? Environmental abuse? You choose, and I'll show you why I wouldn't choose to live there for anything.
Ivana on 03 Sep, 2008 - 12:14 am:
M: Helt enig!
R: I believe I have made it clear in previous entriies that I do not regard the US as a perfect country. Far from it. However, with all due respect, you sound like an intensely angry and frustrated young man, and I sense discussing with you any of the topics you suggest above would be utterly pointless.
But just one remark: I'd love to see you explain to the hundreds of your expatriots who have settled in Seattle, and who are raising families and earning well in Microsoft, Boeing and the medical sectors, just how and why the US is so awful. When my husband and I meet them at various functions and ask them how they could leave such a beautiful country as Australia, the answer is: the mediocrity.
R on 03 Sep, 2008 - 12:48 am:
I appreciate the "young tag" however, I expect I'm probably older than you.
If you want to discuss me, then ok. I'm not angry, and I'm not frustrated. I just think it's amusing watching people try to defend the USA
As for people who moved there from here, good for them. I't's great that they have found their life less mediocre in another country, but that says more about them than the country, as both our countries offer exactly the same, So I suspect they are the type who are easily swept up with the "oooh new country! how exciting" bug. Perhaps I should ask the people who move here from Usa why they left... hmmm..
M on 03 Sep, 2008 - 12:54 am:
Ivana: I assure you that R is not the type of person to form an opinion on anything without researching it first, so his arguments are not founded in frustration or anger.
I'm sure you know lots of nice Usatians, I've known nice Usatians as well..
But the fact of the matter is that in the industrialised part of the world, Usa has the highest crime and homicide rate, highest incarceration rate, highest percentage of people who own guns, and the highest amount of public shootings.
I'm sure there are a lot of people around the world who still like Usa, either because they've been raised in a generation where Usa was the place of dreams, or because anything is better than where they are currently. But there have been surveys done where they ask people which country they dislike the most, and Usa scores very high in those surveys.
So whether you like it or not, and no matter how many nice people you know, Usa is the black sheep of the industrialised world.
Ivar on 03 Sep, 2008 - 3:18 pm:
Ivana: "However, with all due respect, you sound like an intensely angry and frustrated young man, and I sense discussing with you any of the topics you suggest above would be utterly pointless." you said it very well, I agree completely.
M: "Usa has the highest crime and homicide rate,"
Overall the total crime rate of the United States is similar to that of other highly developed countries. Reported property crime in the U.S. is actually lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher.
R: I receive the rss feeds, but within the rss feed the address is wrong. The link outside the article is listed as:
Article: http://www.mulie.net/rss/www.mulie.net
M on 03 Sep, 2008 - 5:27 pm:
How about we don't discuss R's personality? He was discussing the issue, which is how messed up Usa is, when all of a sudden people decided to start on his personality. Let's behave like adults and not do that, ok?
I would say that Norway and Australia are highly developed countries as well, yet I feel as safe here as I did in Norway, and we don't have school shootings. Yes, all countries have crime, but Usa has more than others.
Ivar on 04 Sep, 2008 - 12:00 am:
M: You are righ, we shouldn't discuss anyones personalities (or name calling etc.) here... I will stay on topic from now on.
M: You are beating a dead horse! It has already been stated as a fact (and not disagreed by anyone) that USA has a higher homicide rate than any other industrialized country. So why do you insist on telling the same fact again and again... whats the point? We got that.
However when it comes to other crimes, US is on level or below other countries. When looking at burglary there are several countries that have a higher rate than US, Canada, AUS being a couple.
I don't really feel less safe here than I did in Norway. And yes there are some things I would like to change here, as there are some things I would like to change about Norway too...
R on 04 Sep, 2008 - 12:17 am:
Perhaps with enough dead horse beating, something might one day be done to start the removal of the horse, as I'm sure the opposite, which is ignoring it, will have lettle effect on rectifying any problem.
In other words: "lest we forget"
Ivar on 04 Sep, 2008 - 1:24 am:
R: in your own words... This hardly needs discussing by us. It's an established fact and has been for a very long time. It's like discussing whether the earth is flat or round. Anyone who thinks it's flat is an idiot.
R on 04 Sep, 2008 - 2:19 am:
That's your opinion Ivar, and your're welcome to it, but I think it does need discussing, as I said, ignoring it will never be a catalyst for change.
I think all people who live in that country need to realise that their country is not as good as they think it is, and that most other people in the world don't think Usa is the lovely place that Usa residents think they think it is.
I also think that people from Norway just luuuuuuve Usa for some misplaced reason, and I'll bet it's a sicophantile one - being that they all take the actor and movie admitration thing so far that if they have anything to do with the Usa where most of the most famous movies come from then they feel all cool and "part of what they see in movies and tv!"
I get this from what M told me about a girl in scholl whose dad lived in Usa, and all the kids thought she was soooo cool cos she got to go to Usa every year to visit him.
Plegh!
Sad really.
Back top the point, whioch is temporarily changed to whether or not it should be discussed:
The gun issue and homicide rates and so forth are just minor issues that make up a bigger picture. But discussion about it will stop it from being conveniently ignored.
But I feel you didn't get my last comment. If you did you wouldn't have said that it doesn't need discussing.... Or do you truly feel that problems and issues really should be ignored and not discussed, just because everyone knows they exist?
Anyway, that's enough about whether it should be discussed or not. I think it's obvious that gagging the issue is never constructive.
Ivar on 04 Sep, 2008 - 3:28 am:
R: I was being a bit facetious when I quoted you from another post, where there also where a discussion going, that then got cut short... Obviously the "irony" didn't get through, as it often does not when it is in a written format.
R:"The gun issue and homicide rates and so forth are just minor issues that make up a bigger picture. But discussion about it will stop it from being conveniently ignored."
-Oh I don't disagree with that at all, and I don't mind participating in a discussion about US and how bad it is, but when the same argument (crime and homicide rate) is repeated over and over again, and never opposed or questioned as wrong or incorrect, what is the point of repeating it? It's not like it's bringing something new to the discussion...
R:"I also think that people from Norway just luuuuuuve Usa for some misplaced reason,..."
-I think that is so so, from reading a lot of comments in Norwegian newspapers etc., where the US is involved, there is a lot of "haters" too...
R:"I think all people who live in that country need to realise that their country is not as good as they think it is, and that most other people in the world don't think Usa is the lovely place that Usa residents think they think it is."
-Most Americans are proud of being an American, as I think they should, but most Americans also realize that there are things in this country that are far from good (as with other countries as well), and I'm sure they would be happy to see it change. As far as getting a participation to make this change? That is a bit harder, a lot of Americans (and humans) in general have a mindset of "does it affect me, if not I don't care" so unless the problem gets too close for comfort... most humans don't care (same goes for pollution of the planet too), unfortunately.
Anyway that's my opinion...
R on 04 Sep, 2008 - 3:40 am:
Thanks for your clarification!
Yes, I have met one person who has the attitude of "if it wont affect me then why should I care" - it's a very sad attitude. That was about climate change, but I'm happy to note that every other person I know is eager to do their bit for the environment, so much so that it is a huge selling point here in Aus right now. Anything that is seen as a greener alternative or good for the environment is guaranteed good sales, even if it costs more.
Thanks for the insight on the general attitude of people there though... is there much being done these days about the gun accessibility problem, or the ridiculous homicide rate? Does the Govt even recognise it as a major problem that is killing FAR FAR more americans each week month than terrorist attacks kill in a year?
are they pumping more dollars into fighting the self killing among americans than the killing of americans by terrorists? If not, what are the public doing about it? holding protests? lobbying the Govt? Causing an outcry over the issue, marching in the damn streets over it until the Govt get's it's prioritis right and bans guns, or just ignoring it?
It took one psycho here in 1995 to shoot a bunch of people at a tourist attraction in Tasmania for the govt to say "Right. There is now a ban on all semi-automatic weapons. Anyone that owns one for sport or farming purposes needs to hand it in, and will be monetarily compensated"
M on 04 Sep, 2008 - 10:28 am:
Well I see you all had fun while I was asleep:)
The only reason I repeated myself was because it seemed like people were saying 'well I know all these nice people here, so Usa can't be as messed up as you claim that it is'. Which is a bit silly.
I used to know heaps and heaps of Usatians online, and they are different from other people. Not only do they seem to enjoy acting like victims and crave a ridiculous amount of attention, but they seem extremely self absorbed as well. Not to mention most of them can't spell properly. Oh and they all think Usa is the biggest, richest and most populated country on the planet, and that everyone in the rest of the world must love Usa because they are so good, and anyone who doesn't speak English around the world must be illiterates. Just my personal experience after talking to a few hundred Usatians in a period of about 5 years.
That has nothing to do with crime rates of course, but along with high crime rates it contributes to the lack of respect for Usa around the world. Usa is one of the most hates nations in the world right now.. must be for a reason eh?
Here in Aus pretty much every comedy show puts shit on Usa, because it works every time. Run out of jokes? Not to worry, just bash Usa for a bit and they'll love you:)
Perfect R
Posted in 'Roger' on August 27, 2008
A couple days ago R was showing Olivia our new pond. He gave me credit for everything, because he didn't want it to sound like it was all his idea. What R didn't know at the time is that I was in the bedroom which has a door out to the outside area, and so I heard everything they said.
So R had no idea I could hear him, and he still made sure he gave me credit. Just another thing that makes him perfect and I feel extremely privileged to be with him:)
awwww <3<3 dokke e så skjønne e dør snart :( gift dokke snart da!! e skal være brudepike sant?
Another benefit of a healthy diet
Posted in 'Health and Nutrition' on August 28, 2008
A few months ago I started reading a book called 'Raw energy', and you can read more about the theory behind that here.
As a result of what I read in the book, I changed my diet to include a lot of raw fruit and veggies. R also changed his diet, both because it's easier if we both eat the same thing, and because we both wanna stay healthy.
Last Sunday, R started getting sick. Colds hit him hard, and usually last 9-10 days. But yesterday, Wednesday, the fever, joint aches and blocked nose were gone. He's still coughing and sniffing a bit, but he feels fine, and is pretty much all better.
I have no other explanation, except that a diet consisting of a lot of raw veggies makes us healthier, and so his body was able to fight off the cold in only 3 days.
While perhaps a bit simplistic, the article is quite good.
I was here (Seattle) on 11. Sept. 2001 and cannot adequately describe the pure rage of people. Bush quickly and cleverly tapped into this and, voilá, Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded, thousands of innocent lives were lost, and the US economy was severly impacted. Reminds us Germans of how Hitler came to power in 1933 as a result of the worldwide Depression and the injustices of the Versailles Treaty.
While a democracy appears to be the best form of government we human beings can devise, we must never underestimate the the extents to which an enraged democratic electorate can take us.
Bush could have chosen to talk some sense into the people, and wait until they calmed down, but instead he jumped at the opportunity to start a war on the muslim world.
The rest of the world was outraged as well, but we all wanted to wait for UN's decision on the matter instead of taking matters into our own hands and making a decision which influenced all of the industrialised world, as if Usa had some right to make that decision for everyone.
And Usa believes in using force and violence to solve everything, while the rest of the world believes in diplomacy, and resolving problems like adults.
Yes, but Bush does not appear even to qualify as an adult, especially when measured against the European leaders, of higher intelligence and educational attainments, with whom he occasionally meets (Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown etc.).
There is an expression in German which has its origin in the Bible: Wehe dem Lande, dessen König ein Kind ist: Woe to the land whose child is a king. Midt i blinken, right?
Well said. Bush is a ridiculous person and cannot be defined as an adult.
bush is a muppet