In view of the current superheated and confusing political debates in Copenhagen on anthropogenic climate change, today’s op-ed article by veteran researcher and campaigner Bjorn Lomborg, published by The Australian, a News Corporation paper which, to its great credit and in contrast to other major English-language media like the BBC, the Guardian and the Australian ABC, has consistently welcomed and promoted ‘unorthodox’ opinions, is surely worthy of consideration by those whose minds are not yet closed on this issue.

Given the gravity of the situation on the eve of a political decision by the Copenhagen Summit, I take the liberty of reproducing Lomborg’s important appeal in its entirety, with due acknowledgement to the SOURCE .

Forget protocols, cut to the chase. Non-polluting energy sources are (the) key.

Thousands of politicians, bureaucrats and environmental activists have arrived in Copenhagen for the global climate summit with all the bravado and self-regard of a group of commandos convinced that they are about to save the world.
And although the political differences between them remain huge, delegates are nonetheless congratulating themselves for having the answers to global warming.

The blustery language and ostentatious self-confidence that fill the Bella Centre here remind me of a similar scene: Kyoto, 1997. There, world leaders actually signed a legally binding deal to cut carbon emissions, something that will elude the Copenhagen summit-goers. But what did the Kyoto Protocol accomplish? So far, at least, virtually nothing.

To be sure, Europe has made some progress towards reducing its carbon-dioxide emissions. But, of the 15 European Union countries represented at the Kyoto summit, 10 have still not met the targets agreed there. Neither will Japan nor Canada. And the US never even ratified the agreement. In all, we are likely to achieve barely 5 per cent of the promised Kyoto reduction.

To put it another way, let’s say we index 1990 global emissions at 100. If there were no Kyoto at all, the 2010 level would have been 142.7. With full Kyoto implementation, it would have been 133. In fact, the actual outcome of Kyoto is likely to be a 2010 level of 142.2 — virtually the same as if we had done nothing at all. Given 12 years of continuous talks and praise for Kyoto, this is not much of an accomplishment.

The Kyoto Protocol did not fail because any one nation let the rest of the world down. It failed because making quick, drastic cuts in carbon emissions is extremely expensive. Whether or not Copenhagen is declared a political victory, that inescapable fact of economic life will once again prevail and grand promises will once again go unfulfilled.

This is why I advocate abandoning the pointless strategy of trying to make governments promise to cut carbon emissions. Instead, the world should be focusing its efforts on making non-polluting energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels.

We should be negotiating an international agreement to increase radically spending on green-energy research and development to a total of 0.2 per cent of global GDP, or $US100 billion a year. Without this kind of concerted effort, alternative technologies simply will not be ready to take up the slack from fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, summit delegates seem to have little appetite for such realism. On the first day of the conference, UN climate change chief Yvo de Boer declared how optimistic he was about continuing the Kyoto approach: “Almost every day, countries announce new targets or plans of action to cut emissions,” he said.

Such statements ignore the fact that most of these promises are almost entirely empty. Either the targets are unachievable or the numbers are fudged. For example, Japan’s pledge of a 25 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 sounds incredible because it is. There is no way the Japanese could actually deliver on such an ambitious promise.

China, meanwhile, drew plaudits just before the Copenhagen summit by promising to cut its carbon intensity (the amount of CO2 emitted for each dollar of GDP) over the next ten years to just 40-45 per cent of its level in 2005. Based on figures from the International Energy Agency, China was already expected to reduce its carbon intensity by 40 per cent without any new policies.

As its economy develops, China will inevitably shift to less carbon-intensive industries. In other words, China took what was universally expected to happen and, with some creative spin, dressed it up as a new, ambitious policy initiative. Then again, spin always trumps substance at gatherings such as this. Consider how quick the Copenhagen delegates were to dismiss the scandal now known as “Climategate” — the outcry over the release of thousands of disturbing emails and other documents hacked from the computers of a prestigious British climate-research centre.

It would be a mistake not to learn lessons from this mess. Climategate exposed a side of the scientific community most people never get to see. It was not a pretty picture. What the stolen emails revealed was a group of the world’s most influential climatologists arguing, brainstorming and plotting together to enforce what amounts to a party line on climate change. Data that didn’t support their assumptions about global warming was fudged. Experts who disagreed with their conclusions were denigrated as “idiots” and “garbage”. Peer-reviewed journals that dared to publish contrarian articles were threatened with boycotts. Dissent was stifled, facts were suppressed, scrutiny was blocked and the free flow of information was choked off.

Predictably, the text of the more than 3000 purloined emails have been seized on by sceptics of man-made climate change as “proof” that global warming is nothing more than a hoax cooked up by a bunch of pointy-headed intellectuals. And this is the real tragedy of “Climategate.”

Global warming is not a hoax, but at a time when opinion polls reveal rising public scepticism about climate change, this unsavoury glimpse of scientists trying to cook the data could be just the excuse that too many people are waiting for to tune it all out.

What seems to have motivated the scientists involved in Climategate was the arrogant belief that the way to save the world was to conceal or misrepresent ambiguous and contradictory findings about global warming that might “confuse” the public. But substituting spin for scientific rigour is a terrible strategy.

So too is continuing to embrace a response to global warming that has failed for nearly two decades. Instead of papering over the flaws in the Kyoto approach and pretending that grand promises translate into real action, we need to acknowledge that saving the world requires a smarter strategy than the one being pursued so dogmatically in Copenhagen.
**

(Bjorn_Lomborg is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and author of Cool It: The Sceptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming – Knopf. 2007. ISBN 9780307266927.)

One or two previous blogs in this series have described some of the potential difficulties and disadvantages which may face interpreters (or translators), especially those who work in newsworthy national and international environments and occasionally find themselves being used as scapegoats to save the face of their prominent employers. Number 13 of the series deals briefly with the most negative consequence of this career choice: death on duty.

The conduct of the seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and their close (“in our face”) reporting by the international media – would have been impossible without the contingents of intrepid cameramen and local interpreters, translators and ‘fixers’ who have helped the American and allied forces and the battalions of foreign correspondents. A small proportion of these civilian interpreters (etc.) have paid the ultimate price for their work: death. (Others, as in other foreign wars, may well pay a similar price, when the coalition forces finally depart.)

On assignment in North Iraq in March 2003, Eric Campbell, a correspondent for Australian ABC TV was injured and his cameraman was killed in a terrorist attack (virtually on camera). When New York Times correspondent Stephen Farrell was taken hostage recently in Kunduz province, Afghanistan, he was freed in a subsequent commando raid but his “translator”, Sultan Munadi, was killed.

In an account of his own experiences in South Lebanon, another war correspondent, Sam Kiley, narrates the death of Abed Takoush, the fixer for the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen. Kiley also provides this background information on the unique job description of a fixer and an insight into the close bond between foreign correspondents (or the military) and their invaluable local assistants, referring also to the case of Sultan Manadi. (See The Spectator, 16 September 2009)

“Abed was a “fixer”, like Sultan Manadi, who was killed last week during a NATO operation to free the British journalist Stephen Farrell from Afghan kidnappers. ‘Fixer’ is an ignoble title. The word is sleazy and demeaning: it implies the local people hired by the foreign media are mere higglers. The reality is that without a worldwide network of local freelance drivers, translators, and general all-round fixers, there would be a lot of dead journalists, and pretty soon no foreign news at all.

Any nitwit, and I am living proof, can be a ‘war correspondent’ if they are lucky enough to come across a great fixer. These men and women usually earn no more than $100 a day. For that they provide introductions to gangsters, war lords, terrorists, politicians – as well as navigate, drive and give instant tutorials on Albanian politics, Somali clan rivalries and Balkan history. More important, they keep us alive. Behind our backs they apologise for our cultural insensitivity, anticipate our needs before we know that we’ve got them, and from time to time literally lead us through minefields.”
(The Spectator, 16 September 2009)

A happier ending: 30-year-old Australian SAS Trooper Mark Donaldson was recently awarded the Victoria Cross (Australia’s first for 30 years) for rescuing an Afghan interpreter under heavy fire in 2008. He was subsequently received by Queen Elizabeth II in Buckingham Palace.

Note: Sam Kiley is the author of Desperate Glory: At War in Helmand with Britain’s 16th Air Assault Brigade (London, Bloomsbury).

In the recent years of India’s economic boom, there has been an exponential increase in the numbers of businessmen and trade delegations travelling to India from overseas. One unfortunate result has been that hotel prices in the major cities have soared to stratospheric heights. In many people’s experience, the most expensive hotels are in Mumbai, especially in the Juhu Beach / Airport area (even 3-star ones). Consequently budget-conscious foreign tourists need to research the hotel market carefully to avoid a serious depletion of their funds when visiting the major cities of India.

For (non-business) Indian and foreign visitors to the capital, Delhi, a very welcome development, and an antidote to this severe budget problem has been the recent healthy increase in the number of small guesthouses, or B and B (bed and breakfast) establishments, run by modest Delhi entrepreneurs, usually at affordable prices. They are easily locatable on the Internet.

It was my good fortune to find one of the best of these establishments for a recent extended stay in the capital city: ‘On the House’, in the South Delhi middle-class, ultra-secure, gated community of Safdarjung Enclave.

In its seven rooms, ‘On the House’ offers not only tastefully decorated peaceful rooms but also 24 hour service by a staff of 3. Nothing is too much for them, from breakfast, which is free, to room service and dinner if required (vegetarian or non-veg.) – all at very modest prices (a cup of tea or coffee, for example, costs 50 cents.) Also available are cheap laundry services, a reliable taxi service to nearby shopping malls or to the centre of Delhi – at $10 for 4 HOURS, or short motor rickshaw rides for $1-$2 (for example to the nearby Hyatt Regency, for a splurge meal or to indulge in alcoholic beverages, especially wine, which is not easily obtainable). Other recommended local venues for taxi or rickshaw travel are Khan Market (with a money changer and an excellent bookshop), Ansal Plaza, Sarojini Market and, for Indian and Asian crafts at bargain prices, the extensive market at Dilli Haat.

At On the House, the level of personal service from Ashish and Roger is superb – and very friendly. No request fazes them, or the owner, Ms Aradhna Lanba, or ever-helpful Mr Nanda. Safe and well-priced excursions to Agra, hill stations like Mussoorie or Shimla, sacred Hindu sites like Rishikesh and Haridwar, or to Le Corbusier’s Chandigarh, can also be arranged with reliable travel agencies. If you have an extended stay in Delhi, Ms Lanba can even arrange Hindi lessons from professional teachers for you (but if you can afford this extra service, for the best results, consider learning some basic structures and vocabulary before going to India to make further linguistic progress).

The rooms, lounge and roof Gazebo of On the House are very tastefully decorated, giving an Indian and Asian environment. A further major advantage over those exorbitantly priced hotels is that you actually meet and converse with an interesting variety of fellow guests, Indian and foreign. A selection of books, DVDs, maps, and guidebooks is available to guests.

For the traveller, this is a very pleasant home from home, an oasis from the noise and dust and insecurity of the teeming streets of Delhi. The guestbook gives evidence that many visitors return to ‘On the House’ – or reside there for prolonged periods if working for a foreign company in Delhi. Advanced booking is therefore very necessary, and if you can afford the small extra charge, try to book the beautiful Gulmohar room or the Oak or Mulberry rooms. Details HERE.

In English-speaking countries like USA, Canada and Australia, where there is a long tradition of immigration from non-English-speaking countries, the existence of large numbers of immigrants from many countries has led to the setting up of extensive and expensive interpreting and translating services to assist them in their new country. Anecdotal evidence that the systems are subject to great pressure and do not always work well, as well as of the potentially serious consequences of not using interpreters in medical situations involving non-English-speaking citizens, is contained in excerpts from the following reports.

“Unfortunately, cases in which language barriers cause compromised quality of care and preventable medical errors may become increasingly common in the United States. Almost 50 million Americans speak a primary language other than English at home, and 22.3 million have limited English proficiency (LEP), defined as a self-rated English-speaking ability of less than “very well.” The last decade witnessed a 47% increase in the number of Americans speaking a non-English language at home and a 53% increase in the number of LEP Americans.”
…
“High-profile cases are accumulating of medical errors due to language barriers. Lack of an interpreter for a 3-year-old girl presenting to the emergency department with abdominal pain resulted in several hours’ delay in diagnosing appendicitis, which later perforated, resulting in peritonitis, a 30-day hospitalization, and two wound site infections. A resident’s misinterpretation of two Spanish words (se pegó misinterpreted as “a girl was hit by someone else” instead of “the girl hit herself” when she fell off her tricycle) resulted in a 2-year-old girl with a clavicular fracture and her sibling mistakenly being placed in child protective custody for suspected abuse for 48 hours.
Misinterpretation of a single Spanish word (intoxicado misinterpreted in this case to mean “intoxicated” instead of its intended meaning of “feeling sick to the stomach”) led to a $71 million dollar malpractice settlement associated with a potentially preventable case of quadriplegia.(15)”
(From http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/534045_2. Note: It is necessary to register with Medscape.com as a health practitioner or as “Consumer/Other” before accessing their professional articles.)

The brief mention of that latter case offers an example of the dangers of not using a qualified interpreter in medical situations. It also gives an insight into the idiosyncrasies of the American system of litigation. Further details are available here.

“Providing adequate translation is also a safety issue and a potential liability issue, Flores said, noting a successful $71 million Florida lawsuit in the case of a teenager who was left a quadriplegic.
“He was an 18-year-old who went to a sporting event at his high school, wasn’t feeling well and walked over to his girlfriend’s house. Just before he collapsed he said, ‘Me siento intoxicado.’ The paramedics came along, and the girlfriend didn’t speak a lot of English, and the mother of the girlfriend didn’t, either. They mentioned that word, and the paramedics said, “Oh, yeah, intoxicado, that means intoxicated. So they took him to the emergency room.
“He ended up going to the intensive-care unit because he had gone into a coma, and for 48 hours they were working him up for drug abuse. Then they finally did a CT scan, and it turned out he had actually had a brain aneurysm and that it burst, and he got a huge intracranial bleed,” Flores said.
Intoxicado, in fact, can mean nausea.
“That is one example of why, if you spent $30 for an interpreter, you wouldn’t have had to spend $71 million to settle a lawsuit,” he said.”

A further case of an interpreter reaping his or her 15 minutes of fame occurred in September 2009 when a flamboyant enfant terrible of international diplomacy, Libya’s President Muammar Gaddafi, rejected the use of the official U.N. interpreting services and insisted on using an interpreter from his own entourage. The resulting marathon speech to the U.N. General Assembly in New York (recorded by media cameras and microphones) and the effect on the interpreter, however predictable, can only be decribed as bizarre. Although the anonymous Libyan interpreter emerges with honour from the unfair ordeal, the didactic value of the incident may ensure use of this priceless footage as future interpreting course material. This is how The (British) Times Online reported the extraordinary incident on 25 September.

“Muammar Gaddafi’s personal translator broke down towards the end of the Libyan leader’s meandering 94-minute UN speech and had to be rescued by a U.N. Arabic speaker.

The Libyan translator matched the “Brother Leader of the Revolution” word-for-word for 90 minutes before collapsing from exhaustion, just after Mr Gaddafi denounced the popular Ottawa Treaty outlawing landmines. […] The translator broke down as the man once denounced by Ronald Reagan as the “mad man” of the desert embarked on a tirade about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and an explanation of his call for a single-state solution called “Isratine”.

According to the New York Post, the Libyan translator shouted: “I just can’t take it any more.”

Rules specify that UN translators provide live interpretation only for 40 minutes at a time, and they are accustomed to seamless handovers. But Libya insisted on using its own translators for both English and French rather than one of the 25 world-class Arabic translators at the UN.

Libyan diplomats said that Mr Gaddafi would be speaking a dialect only his own staff could understand. In the event, he spoke standard Arabic.

Mr Gaddafi spoke six times longer than the 15-minute limit set by the UN General Assembly. But he did not come close to Fidel Castro’s record of four-and-a-half hours, set in 1960.”

The dramatic dénouement is a credit to the high level of professionalism of U.N. interpreters:

“The Libyan translator was bailed out by the UN’s Arabic section chief, Rasha Ajalyqeen, who stepped in without missing a beat. Ms Ajalyqeen provided English translation for the remainder of the speech, but sometimes appeared to be chuckling to herself at Mr Gaddafi’s extravagant and rambling language.”

(See the full Report here)

My earlier blogs Mistranslation 3 (13 June 2008), 4 (23 June 2008) and 5 (17 July 2008) were on the topic of the Interpreter (or Translator) as scapegoat or centre of media attention in national and international political affairs. A recent case may be added to this growing list.

The screening of the documentary Stolen at the Sydney Film Festival in June 2009 created a snowballing controversy which lasted two months and may still be reverberating as the documentary is shown in other countries. By the time the film was re-screened at the Melbourne Film Festival on 31 July 2009, the controversy had become so heated that the Australian ABC recorded a 20 minute Q and A session after the screening. (References will follow later in a group for further study.)

In the background of the discussion is a long-festering African post-colonial dispute which began in the mid-1970s when the Spanish Government ceded its Protectorate of Western Sahara (Sahara Occidental) to Morocco and Mauritania. (The case has some parallels with the East Timor saga (Timor Leste), which began at the same time but reached a settlement a decade ago. In fact, at one point, the President of East Timor, José Ramos Horta became involved. See reference below.)

The complex controversy arises from the conflicting points of view of the Moroccan Government and its supporters and the views of the (rebel) Frente Polisario Freedom Movement and their partisans. Also active in the debate were a number of Western Saharans (Saharawis) who have migrated to and settled in Australia and belong to the association, Australian Western Sahara Association, AWSA). Others also joined in the debate.

However, the major point of interest for those of us interested in translation and interpretation matters is the accusation that some of the recorded dialogue was incorrectly translated or transcribed from the local Hassaniya language into English, and also in part, the question of interpreter competence. This charge led to the accusation that some of the statements of one of the interviewees from a refugee camp were misrepresented by the film makers. The evidence offered is not easy to analyse but may be worth the attention of independent experts.

The basic details of this case may be studied by following these references:

1. Australian ABC TV, 7.30 Report, 15 June 2009
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2598994.htm

“Bitter dispute over Stolen documentary
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 15/06/2009 Reporter: Matt Peacock

A bitter dispute has erupted over the accuracy of a taxpayer-funded feature documentary screened at the Sydney Film Festival. The film, called ‘Stolen’, features the story of Fetim Sellami and her family, who live in a refugee camp in the Algerian Sahara Desert. Fetim Sellami has been flown to Sydney by the independence movement that runs the camp, to enable her to denounce her depiction in the documentary as a slave, and the allegation that such slavery is widespread in the camps.”

1 (a). The Question and Answer Session (after the July screening)
ABC Radio Movie Time, 31 July 2009
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/archive/audioonly/mme_31072009_e1.mp3

2. The detailed response by the Australian Western Sahara Association (AWSA), consisting of 42 pages, mainly of transcripts and compared translations.
http://awsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/critique-of-stolen-ii.pdf

3. Relevant blogs on the Nuseiba blogsite
(a) Western Sahara and Faitim’s Story (30 June, 2009) (Followed by many comments.)
http://nuseiba.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/western-sahara-and-faitims-story/

“Control of the territory is being fought between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Liberation Front (PLF). Since 1991 most of the territory is controlled by Morocco, with the remainder controlled by the PLF (backed by neighbour Algeria.).”

(b) Mistranslations and Finger-Pointing – Revisiting Stolen (August 2, 2009). Also with many comments.
http://nuseiba.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/mistranslations-and-finger-pointing-%E2%80%93-revisiting-stolen/

“A couple of weeks ago my post on the documentary Stolen generated a whole discussion about whether or not slavery exists in the Tindouf refugee camps in Western Sahara. Is there, isn’t there, it went on and on (even though I distinctly remember saying the post wasn’t discussing whether or there was slavery, but rather about the abuse of Fetim’s story for the uses of others.) But never mind. I decided to reserve my opinion on the existence of slavery in the region until after I watched the film. On Friday I had that opportunity (it was screened as part of the Melbourne International Film Festival) but unfortunately for Fallshaw and Ayala I’m still undecided about the whole issue …”

4. A President Intervenes: Timor’s link to a Saharan struggle by Jose Ramos-Horta (22 July, 2009)
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/timors-link-to-a-saharan-struggle-20090721-dryz.html?page=1

This begins:
“As I visit Australia again, to attend this week’s opening of the Melbourne International Film Festival, I have been confronted by the outcry over the film Stolen, which will screen at the festival and which represents, in microcosm, the importance of truth in the struggle for justice. The film, which makes claims of widespread slavery in the Western Saharan refugee camps, represents many of the ugly realities of this central dynamic. It is a scenario I know only too well.
I have followed closely the question of Western Sahara for decades. In our years of struggle for independence, strong friendship and solidarity grew between the Timorese and the Saharawis. I have met many Saharawis and visited the Saharawi refugee camps and liberated areas twice. I did not see any form of slavery in those camps. Rather, what I know of the Saharawis is that they are enlightened and committed to their cause of freedom.
The situation of Western Sahara is perhaps not well known to Australians. For East Timorese, there are ties which make a mutual understanding easier to find. Both East Timor and Western Sahara were colonised by Iberian powers – Portugal and Spain, respectively; both have been identified by the United Nations as being ready for decolonisation; both were invaded, post-European withdrawal, by regional powers in 1975; both peoples have been subjected to widespread human rights abuses; and both have been caught up in global political trends not of their making.”

Disclaimer:
In spite of what is shown in the following quotations from one book, educated Mexicans tend to speak very good English. They have to because their careers often depend on this facility. Unfortunately, the same cannot yet be said for educated speakers of American English in relation to fluency in Spanish.

In 1997, the Mexican author Eduardo R. Huchim published an interesting futuristic political novel, set in 2000, with ample doses of sexual interludes. It was titled Las conjuras. Una historia en el México del año 2000 (Mexico, Grijalbo, 1997).

The author includes some imaginary telephone conversations on serious matters between the American and Mexican Presidents. Presumably to add realism, Huchim writes these conversations mainly in English. But the seriousness of the topics under discussion is completely undermined by the unconvincing language used. The resulting bathos is due to Señor Huchim’s failure to take the precaution of getting his comically literal English checked, at minimal cost, by a competent translator.

Here are some of the results (they include sloppy spelling and punctuation):
-Mr. president, you can not anounce what your message says.
-Of course I can, Mr. president. I shall do it in 20 minutes.
-Do you want to kick the world?
-Do you want to do that?
-Of course not.
-Then, agree to the moratorium.
-Will you forget the drug legalization and the reduction of your exports …?
-Yes, Mr. president. I promise I will forget both things for some months-. I need proof of the efectiveness of your program against drug consumption and I need to see the oil prices. (p.119)
-Well, Mr. president. I need some hours to try to persuade my team and the IMF about the moratorium.
-How many hours, Mr. president?
-This day.
-OK, Mr president. I will postpone my message until tomorrow. I shall wait for your notifications.
-It is a black mail.
-From your part, Mr. president. You are who tries to persuade me not to give my message to my people.
Una carcajada de William Clinton y un “you are terrible” puso fin a la breve charla. (p. 120) [A belly laugh from President Clinton and a “you are terrible” ended the brief conversation.]
…

-Mr. president. There is an only way against the drugs. It is the legalization. Any other thing will fail. It is necessary to walk on that road. But while it is possible, I’ll have good news for you very soon. Be atent about news. Good morning, Mr. president. (p. 125)

-Mr. president, I also want to tell you of an important matter. I think our differences had gone far enough. I want to propose you an agreement for the normalization at once of all our commerce, including oil and petrochemistry. We accept your decisions on the matter and we are ready, tomorrow if you want, to sign an agreement for buying and paying for all the oil that we did not buy in the last four months. You will give us the oil in a period of three months.
…
-Oh, Mr. president, be understanding. Congress is very angry. Do not make it difficult.
…
-Nuestra decisión es definitiva. Yo tendría mañana al pueblo en rebelión si, después de tantos sacrificios, me rindiera -insistió López Obrador. (p. 208)
-No, Mr. president, your people would be calming down after so many sacrifices. But this is not a conversation between merchants. So I accept your prices, but this will be signed immediatly. OK?
…
-Yes, Mrs. secretary -se despidió [el Presidente] Williams dirigiéndose a Jimena-, someday all of you will know how much you have won tonight, much, very much more than an oil bussiness. Good nigth. (p. 209)
*

And Good night to readers!

“cough into the crook of your elbow rather than your palms”
It sounds convincing to me. And simple.
“However the pandemic plays out, the chief mantra for everyone — wash your hands, cough into the crook of your elbow rather than your palms, stay home if you’re sick — will be repeated endlessly over the coming months in ad campaigns, public-service announcements and the global media.”
See ‘Inside the Fight Against a Flu Pandemic’ by Michael Scherer and Eben Harrell (Aug 12, 2009).
Good luck to you up there in the Northern Hemisphere, from Down Under.
P.S. This is the equivalent of TWO Tweets.

The latest angle (12 August 2009):
Climate Change, the American Psychological Association, and Psychopathology
“The Soviet Union perfected the art of pathologizing its dissidents. Since the USSR was a “Worker’s Paradise” it was rather obvious that anyone who objected to the arrangement must be psychologically impaired. Dissidents were routinely sent to Psychiatric hospitals and injected with all manner of powerful Psychiatric medications in an effort to correct their Psychiatric disorders. Once the basic premise was accepted, the misuse of Psychiatry was inevitable. It appears that the American Psychological Association is following in the glorious footsteps of Soviet Psychiatry.”
Read the full article.

Closely on the heels of Professor Ian Plimer’s hefty contribution to the Global Warming debate (Heaven and Earth. Global Warming: The Missing Science, ConnorCourt Publishing, 2009, now in its umpteenth pritning) comes another stimulating work by a fellow Australian scientist, Garth Paltridge (The Climate Caper).
See the review by John Izzard in Quadrant Online.
It begins:
“There is a wonderful image from the painting by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Blind Leading the Blind on the cover of a new book on the crass new celebrity-science Global Warming a.k.a. Climate Change.
These two quasi-scientific expressions deserve capital letters as they have now moved from the notion of a theory to a rapidly developing religion.
In his new book, The Climate Caper, Garth Paltridge joins the growing band of eminent scientists and rational thinkers who are challenging the runaway theory of human induced Global Warming. Like the Wendy’s hamburger TV commercial from the USA — they are exclaiming of the science, “where’s the beef”.
Unfortunately, Global Warming scientists who want to find simple explanations for complicated questions about The Meaning of Life, are behaving more like Monty Python performers than men and women of science.”
Read the rest at

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2009/07/the-climate-caper-2