Peter, this article and your opinion on the tsunami event and it's consequences is much appreciated. I was appalled recently to read in a newspaper that some religious leaders have suggested the tsunami and it's catastrophic results are a judgement from God on us for some sort of misbehaviour. What absolute nonsense! I do not believe in any kind of god or religion that could be so insane.

What does make sense to me is that we as custodians of just one planet in Universe have a responsibility to do all we can to act responsibly about matters within our control. If we are not caring adequately for our planet home we must adjust our behaviour.

Thanks for helping me make more sense of what has happened than anyone else I have read lately.

MB

In responding to your article Peter, I have a great need to express my opinion on the selective media coverage surrounding the Asian Tsunami.

I to, have found that the free to air commercial TV coverage has targeted the impact to western lifestyles and disgarded the rest of humanity. Imagine my discuss at then seeing a stations self advertising promotion using images of what should not be sensationalised, that is how brilliantly they are covering the latest news with repeat images. I ask you should there really be a need, or the option, of sensationalising to the point of desensitisation of what is the one most significant atrocity that demands universal cohesion and genuine compassion. I mean, is this not massive enough without having to go that extra tweak, a test to quality ethical reporting skills I would imagine. Their complete disregard for ethics, human life and loss appalls me.

To support this sensationalisation let me tell you what I saw on another news coverage from non-commercial stations that has not even been touched by the commercial ones. The story was about a group of survivors who were found on an Indonesian island 6 days after being devastated, they were the last of the islands residents yet not a word of this was put to air on the commercial station. I felt such deep pain for these survivors when cameramen captured, with empathy, the look on their faces when coming down river to realise, for the first time, the greater extent of what has occurred, that first time vision of the world past their point of initial survival.

Sadly, what this shows to me is that modernity will always have views of ethnocentrism, for not even this devastation has genuinely created a need to change how one processes and represents reality to the masses via the all consuming mass media.

Outstanding article Peter. I agree with you on the issue where funds would have to come from. I'd like to throw out a suggestion on where exactly in the West most, if not all, of the funds should be given from. Where is big business in all of this? Did I not just see an article that exclaimed how well all the businesses did this holiday season? Does the average person see any general improvement of life because of this? I severely doubt it. Inflation is an ever increasing problem, but for what reason, I ask? Employees continue to be paid less, so where does all this extra money go? It is painfully obvious whos pockets it has fallen into.

As an example of some of the horrible things done by large companies, look what happens to a poor mother taking food for her starving family.. Verily, it is unlawful, although with such a large stockpile of money I personally would be predisposed to look the other way. Especially if it's only effect on me is one as unimportant and greedy as not being able to some undoubtably unnecessary material item in a most likely high scale house.

Getting back to my point, it is a personal belief of mine that if our world's largest companies, with more actual money than our own Government, should be paying the bills and helping out with this our most grievious of recent natural disasters. If they won't help their own nation's people, maybe what happened out there in the Pacific will cause an epiphany of sorts.. If some of the largest corporations could stop bragging about how much money they sucked from people this year, and realize what their success does to everyone else. In the end I can only hope that they will help out the people effected, who need it even more than those poor who live here under their controlling hands.

As a follow up comment I would like to add that we would all be better off should we begin completely ignoring advertising. All it is is psychological pollution. We need to try as a people to ascend above the level of cattle. Don't let these businesses herd you around and milk you every year; Take care of yourselves.

TG

Read Peter's article and you'd think that the west has paid a passing interest at best in the Asian disaster. Peter demands that the money to aid in this disaster come from the west. Well, that's exactly where it's coming from. US-$350 million, Britain-$95 million, Sweden-$75.5 million, Spain-$68 million, France-$57 million, Australia-$47 million, Canada-$33 million and so on, and there will most probably be more where that came from when it becomes clearer just how much money is really needed. That's only government donations, donations from the public of western countries will probably end up doubling this amount. Your argument is redundant.

Of course every country in the world should do all they can to help ease the suffering and rebuild these peoples lives. It just seems beyond the haters of the west to give any credit where it is due. It's also quite devious to talk about this human disaster in the same breath as global warming, ozone depletion and other environmental concerns in an obvious attempt to link the two in peoples minds. The tsunami would still have happened if the west was poor and impoverished and not causing all those nasty gas problems. Luckily the west is not impoverished or the rebuilding of these regions probably wouldn't happen for many generations if at all.

One other thing. To say that western media " quickly concentrated on the story of the relatively few western victims over that of the multi-thousands of Asians affected." is just the sort of typical west-bashing tripe we've been used to hearing for years. Peter, go and tell that to the families of western victims of this disaster. I mean, these people were only there holidaying, working, seeing family, redistributing their money to countries that no doubt need it. I've heard plenty about ALL victims of the tsunami. Contrary to the belief of some people, westerners love their families too.

I wondered how long it would take someone to link the earthquake/tsunami disaster with global warming? Nice try but clearly they are two entirely different phenomena.

Peter, you should check some of the literature in regards to global warming - a warmer, more uniform temperature will cause less climatic catastrophes such as tornados.

The tsunami which wiped out so many people in South Asia is nobody's fault, least of all holidayers from the west or the governments and companies donating millions of dollars in aid.

It is a tragedy and taking advantage of it by spruiking about global warming is blatant opportunism.

How much money have you donated Peter?

Peter's article has boldly made the connection between global warming-style disasters and the devastation of the recent Tsunami. It does not read as though Peter is connecting global warming to the tsunami but rather reminding us that the devastation we have witnessed and will continue to see is a representation of the sort of impact a global-warming disaster has the potential to create. And this is an important point. It is difficult for humanity to comprehend the scenarios associated with global warming. A tsunami, a hurricane, a cyclone, flash floods, etc, are all destructive events that will strike suddenly and impact rapidly and we tend to forget about just as quickly. With the modern media we can witness their impact and respond with immediate relief, providing an outlet for our sense of compassion and desire to assist. Arguably too late. We can blame the unpredictable forces of nature and claim that we could not possibly predict such events as they strike quickly and unexpectedly. We can post our money to the poorest parts of the world - where the greatest impact of such events are felt - and then simply go about our lives waiting for the next unpredictable event to occur.

When presented with early warning signs however that point to the potential for human actions to generate such events - melting ice sheets, shifts in global temperature, climate modelling - we respond with disbelief, inaction and rhetoric to the claim that the two - gradual change and catastrophic events - could possibly be related.

It may seem an appropriate action in the face of such a disaster for developed countries to rebuild the affected communities in the same way that makes them vulnerable to a tsunami, extreme weather or rising sea-levels. But it's about time the developed world started connecting the tangible impacts in the tsunami affected areas to its inaction on climate change. Or this will just be the start of a long line of rescue and re-building efforts that provide short term relief but ignore an underlying time-bomb just waiting to go off.

It is amazing how hard it is to have serious discussion on such important issues, like the Asian Tsunami and global warming, without it getting nasty and personal. Cranky and the Usual Suspect seem little intersted in the issue itself, instead just looking for a chance to misrepresent what Mcmahon actually said and make personal slurs. As if what Mcmahon gave to the Tsunami appeal has any bearing on his right to comment. We should remember that personal abuse always indicates a lack of better argument. And at least McMahon is not working for some right wing think tank with a vested interest in killing all debate about envinonmental matters.

As to the connection between the Tsunami and global warming (one Mcmahon made in terms of effects, not cause), Sir David King said that "the Asian Tsunami disaster underlined the threat posed by climate change", that "other effects of global warming such as increased storms and flooding were already happening" and that "one side of this is we need to prepare ourselves against these increased impacts." But what would he know - he is only the British Government's chief scientific adviser.

Cranky, the Usual Suspect and all the other commentators who so quickly revert to personal attacks and vitriolic language should ask themselves whether they do even want a proper debate about these matters. If not, what is the point of OnLine Opinion?

Yes, solarboy, you've put your finger on what I was feeling when I read those other comments. No useful purpose is served by personal attacks except for a person to blow off steam about something else or someone else in their life which they are unhappy about. I don't think this forum is an appropriate place to do that, at least I hope not.
MB

Solarboy, when you find it, let me know where I was nasty and personal. I take it because I don't accept what Peter or you have to say I've got no right to an opinion? You've certainly hit on a fantastic way to have a proper debate on a subject. "I'm right, all who agree with me are right, you're wrong so shutup". Rather "left" of you if I may say so. (And I say that in the nicest possible way).

What makes you think Peter is aligned in anyway to the left or right? I don't think that the environment debate is drawn along those lines. Sure politicians have hijacked the environmental debate, as they do everything else, but caring for our environment for the benefit of ourselves and the future is not the sole domain of the left.

I never misrepresented what Peter said. It's quite obvious what he said. I disagreed with the blatently sly attempt to link and compare the two. As if the disastrous effects of a tsunami, hitting countries out of the blue with power that we can't even imagine, will be the same as sea levels rising a miniscule amount every year. Especially when the science that predicts this is suspect at best. The science of climate is one of the most imprecise. They can't tell you what's going to happen next month but everyone's sure what's going to happen in 10 years. Yeah right! Reminds me of the "civilization as we know it" ending millenium bug.

As for Dr.King! Big Deal!! I haven't heard where he's the final arbiter on the subject. He's just another scientist (a chemist I think) among many. Once appointed by the government he's just another politician towing the party line. His statements are just as misleading and opportunistic as Peter's.

You seem pretty good at reverting to personal attacks and spewing vitriol yourself solarboy. But at the end of the day you've added nothing to the debate.

MB, just because I don't agree doesn't mean I have a controlling mother, distant father and/or self-esteem issues. Now I'm not allowed to voice an opinion because I'm "troubled". God help us!

Solarboy and MB, where does it get personal?

All I did was ask Peter to read about the links between higher temperatures and tornados.

My question to him about how much money he has donated is a valid one considering he is criticising the "West" about contributions.

The environmental debate is exactly that - a debate. Just because many people are suspicious of the science and motives behind global warming does not render their opinion pointless.

And thank you for your personal assessment of my life. My New Year's resolution is to live a perfectly happy life, free of any kind of personal and financial stress while I dance around the Maypole and sing with fairies. Fingers crossed.

While it is good that we have the debate about climate change and how the rise in sea levels may well aggravate the effects of tsunamis, the real issue, what actually caused the earthquake and the preceding one off New Zealand, a week earlier, has not been touched upon by Peter McMahon. I did some internet searching earlier on this week, and I was astounded to find an overwhelming body of arguments that support a direct and causal link between the effects of global warming and the resulting meting of the icecaps, and how this has altered the pressure on the continental plates around the planet. I wrote it up for this week's edition of NewMatilda.com:

http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetailmagazine.asp?ArticleID=407&HomepageID=56

and left a copy on our website here

http://www.safecom.org.au/envirogees.htm

This is the real news that should be out there, so politicians can be pressured to implement Kyoto and a raft of other legislation, that reduces the likelyhood of a repeat of the events, and so churches can tell those in the pews that it was an Act of Man, rather than an act of God.

Jack

The notion of increased storms due to "global warming" is pure fantasy. Here is an extract from a study on this very subject:

It is generally accepted that, all over the world, property damage from tropical cyclones (TC) has increased over the years. There is a common perception in the media, and even in government and management circles, that this is due to an increase in tropical cyclone frequency and perhaps intensity, probably as a result of global climate change.

However, studies all over the world show that though there are decadal variations, there is no definite long-term trend in the frequency or intensity of tropical cycles.

In this paper, we review recent worldwide literature on trends in tropical cyclone frequency, intensity, and impact, with special reference to the North Indian Ocean (NIO) basin…Evidence from this analysis supports the view that the increase in vulnerability and damage is due to societal factors rather than any increase in cyclone frequency or intensity.

The specter or tropical cyclones increasing alarmingly due to global climate change, portrayed in the popular media and even in some more serious publications, does not therefore have a sound scientific basis.

Reference:

Raghavan, S., Rajesh, S., 2003. Trends in tropical cyclone impact. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84:635-644.

My understanding was that the Antarctic Ice pack was increasing, and that sea ice had been icreasing since 1979 (lasting 21 days longer). This is a reversal of a 6000 thousand year trend.

This may suggest that we are now entering a period of global cooling, although it is obviously too early to suggest that this is the start of a new ice age.

I recommend a search of scientific papers on google. I looked it up after reading Michael Crichton's latest book.

If Jack above is correct, and the change in the ice pack in Antarctica caused the trunami, then maybe we should look at melting part of the ice pack?
Personally I think it extrordianary bordering on the rediculous to suggest mere humans are influancing tetonic plates.

The more likely explanation of recent earthquakes is that the moon exerts a daily, tidal pull on eath's crust, just as it does on the oceans to produce daily tides. The estimated extent of crustal tides ranges around 20cm as the moon passes overhead. This quote is from Ken Ring's site in NZ

http://www.predictweather.com/articles.asp?ID=3

regarding the coincidence of moon phases and earthquakes:

"Moscow researchers studied the catalogue of earthquakes from 1964 to 1992. They found that most severe earthquakes in the region of the Pacific seismic ring also started at the days of new moon or full moon, or a couple of days earlier or later. Longrange forecasters have known for a long time that earthquakes come more often around new and full moons. The quakes also occur when the moon is furthest north or south (that's called the N or S declination), and when the moon is closer or furthest from earth(perigee/apogee). When these three cycles peak, earthquakes are three times as likely. The recent tsunami was such a case, as was the Napier earthquake in 3/2/31. But whether or not a tsunami results depends on the depth of the epicentre. This event was only about 10m below the earth's crust. The 1931 Napier quake was considerably deeper but still caused a wave one to two metres high. And a significant factor is that declination is nearing a 19 year peak, just as it was in 1931, triggering earthquakes again potentially more powerful. The director of the Meteorological service of Thailand was sacked because he failed to issue a warning that the tsunami would arrive in an hour, because he didn’t want to affect tourism if he was wrong.

"The perigee of January 10th was the closest the Moon came to Earth since March 1993 and won't be bettered until 2016. On 7/1/05 we put out a press release warning.  We thought earthquakes were possible near January 9th (on E of NZ? at 4am, midday or midnight). One happened on the 9th at 4pm, with the epicentre just south of Taupo, a 3.7mag but far enough down at 74kms that it probably wasn’t felt.

http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_tbbg.html

Given the perigee, the SD and the apogee, it was reasonable to expect activity between 9th-12th. Sure enough, in the Pacific region we had on the 11th: one in Tonga, a 4.9, 25kms down; on the 12th one in Alaska, a mag4.7; one in India at mag4.8 a quite big one on Tonga, 5.5mag, 15kms down, also a 6.8mag in the midAtlantic just to the left off Africa. In the last 7 days they've had 515 earthquakes on the W coast of N America.
The next apogee of Jan 24th will again be the second furthest away for the year. So Jan 23rd-25th with its FM+A+N.dec looks like a time for another lot of large earthquake activity."

I would guess that any minicule difference in crustal loading by melting ice masses would hardly rate, compared to the regular, daily crustal flexing caused by the moon's graviational pull.

Greenies really are desperate if they have to capitalise on some hypothetical threat to bolster their already flimsy case for "global warming".

An opinion piece I recommend to “peterd” about icecap melting & growing is by George Monbiot in the "Guardian Weekly", May 20-26, titled “Junk Science” dealing with “inaccurate and selective figures on glacier shrinkage” quoted in the “New Scientist” by British botanist David Bellamy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1480376,00.html