Magic Statistics

I am old enough to remember the Biafra War during the late 1960s; I remember the war being described as a campaign of genocide against the Ibo people of Nigeria; I saw the images of starving children on television. But I never understood who was waging war on the Ibo people, or why. Today, after reading a commentary by Hugh Fitzgerald, Jihad Watch Board Vice President, it finally becomes clear.

During the Biafra War of 1967-1969, which was triggered by a massacre by Muslims of Christians, the entire Western world stood by and allowed the Muslims of the North to slaughter the Christian, mainly Ibo, south. These Muslims were aided by outside Muslims, including Egyptian pilots who strafed and bombed Ibo villages, killing tens of thousands — without any opposition, anti-aircraft fire, anything.

The war was brought on by the Jihad against the Christian Ibo and other Christian peoples of southern Nigeria by the Hausa and Fulani Muslims of the north (Islam itself was spread most recently in the 1804 Jihad declared by Othman Dan Fodio), and by the desperate attempt of the Ibo (Igbo) people to free themselves from Muslim aggression. Tens of thousands of civilians were murdered — by the Egyptian pilots who repeatedly bombed and strafed them.

Great Britain, France, the United States, all of Europe, did nothing to help the Christians.

The West didn't understand Islam then, but we have some understanding now. The word "jihad" was meaningless to us then, but not anymore. This is not over yet.

Read the whole thing.

About two weeks ago, I blogged the decision in the complaint of two lesbians against the Knights of Columbus. Tracey Smith and Deborah Chymyshyn launched an action through the BC Human Rights Tribunal because the Knights retracted permission to rent a hall for a wedding reception. The lesbians had withheld an important tidbit of information when they arranged the rental, namely, that they wanted the hall for their own wedding reception.

That was bad enough, but now David Hauser, a member of the Knights of Columbus and one of those responsible for renting the hall, alleges that he was fired from his job at Costco because of his involvement in the refusal to rent the hall to the lesbians. In fact, Tracey Smith was one of his co-workers at Costco.

Hauser related that Smith and many of the management at the Port Coquitlam warehouse were openly homosexual. He related that for months before Smith and her same-sex partner approached his wife for the hall rental, these same individuals had been asking him about his involvement with the hall, and knew that he was in charge of bookings.

"In retrospect, they picked a time when they knew I would be at work to call my wife Sandra, who shows the hall when I am unavailable," Hauser said. He is convinced the entire fiasco was orchestrated before the event. However, in the human rights complaint against the Knights the lesbian couple claimed they did not realize the hall was affiliated with the Catholic Church.

Tracey's partner, Deborah Chymyshyn, claimed to the Vancouver Sun in November that, "If they would have let us know up front who they were, we probably would have never even gone there."

This is as outrageous as it gets. It appears that Smith and Chymyshyn deliberately targeted the Knights of Columbus. Their wedding reception was only a pretext for launching a legal action directed against religious freedom in Canada. Not only that, they took the BC Human Rights Tribunal along for the ride.

Sounds to me like Mr Hauser may have grounds for his own lawsuit against Costco and his former co-workers, if he wants to go that route.

Statistics Canada this morning released a new report on the Canadian environment. Air quality deteriorated and greenhouse gas emissions increased between 1990 and 2003. The summary news release is posted here, and the full report can be downloaded here in pdf format.

Before we look more closely at the greenhouse gas statistics, recall last weekend's climate change conference in Montreal, where Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin implied the United States was acting immorally by not signing on to the Kyoto Protocol:

At a news conference after the speech [at the UN climate change conference in Montreal], Mr Martin referred explicitly to Canada's neighbours to the south, saying: "To the reticent nations, including the United States, I would say this: there is such a thing as a global conscience, and now is the time to listen to it."

With that as background, let's look at the numbers.

The greenhouse gas indicator presented in the report estimates Canada's total emissions of the six greenhouse gases that are the major contributors to climate change. The indicator comes from data compiled by Environment Canada. Greenhouse gas emissions rose 24% from 1990 to 2003, and in 2003 were 32% above the target set by the Kyoto Protocol for 2008 to 2012.

This revealing little chart accompanied the Statistics Canada news release.

That light blue horizontal line in the lower right of the chart shows the level of greenhouse gases that Canada is permitted to emit beginning in 2008 under the Kyoto Protocol.

Think we'll meet that Kyoto target? Me neither.

After all the anti-US vitriol that poured out of last weekend's Montreal climate summit, I'll bet that headline is news to a lot of people. It was to me. Philip Stott reports on the conference:

The Montreal conference on climate change has been an eye-opener. It has demonstrated a truth which for a long time has been only partially apparent: namely that, for many delegates and Green 'hangers on', punishing America for electing George W. Bush is far more rewarding and important than tackling climate change.
. . .
For anybody genuinely worried about climate change, Montreal is bleak.

First, many countries which take the 'moral high ground' in public are quietly the very worst offenders. Hypocritical Canada (Paul Martin was unbelievable in his attack on the US) has seen its emissions rise by 24% (on the Kyoto-base 1990-levels); Japan, which gave the name to the original Kyoto Protocol, by 18%; and the statistics for some of the ever-pious European countries take the breath away - Spain up by 42%, Portugal up by 37%, and merry Ireland and Greece up by 26%. In contrast, the US - the non-ratifier of Kyoto, note - has seen its emissions rise by only 13% (and they have fallen 2% under Bush!). So who is the bad boy?
. . .
In the end, for those poor souls who are desperately worried about climate change, there can be only one measure of success - dramatically declining emissions. But there is no evidence whatsoever that this conference will lead to any such thing. Indeed, the myths of carbon trading are likely to increase overall emissions, while binding targets are now off the agenda.

Bashing America may be fun (for some), but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the deeper realities. Indeed, Mr. Bush may have done far better politically to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol - and then to ignore it, just like everyone else.

Philip Stott is Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the University of London. Last week I blogged a Times of London column that he wrote. For those interested in environmental issues, his blog is definitely one to follow.

via ¡No Pasarán!.