Is the Internet Really Making Us Dumber?

Der Spiegel
Hilmur Schmundt

Many scholars and critics warn that TV and the Internet are dumbing us down. But, if that's true, why are children around the world performing better on IQ tests? Are we actually getting smarter, or are we merely thinking in different ways?


Vincent is sitting on the couch and watching a vacation video when he suddenly poses two questions to his parents: "Why is space endless? And what was there before the Big Bang?"

Without waiting for an answer, Vincent jumps up to turn his attention to a different topic: his new red rubber boots with pictures from the animated film series "Cars." "I want a puddle!" Vincent shrieks, dancing around the room in excitement. "Then I can jump in it and splash you!"

Vincent T. is 4 years old. Two years ago, he was having problems at his day care center, where he was throwing sand and hitting other children. Was he disturbed? Did he suffer from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or perhaps even Asperger's syndrome? Concerned, his parents had two-and-a-half-year-old Vincent examined by a psychologist. The finding: Vincent had an IQ of 133.

That means Vincent is gifted. At just two years old, he taught himself the alphabet. Being bored in his toddler playgroup led him to break out in tears every morning. Since he started at a preschool with a reading corner, though, things have been fine. His parents have registered Vincent to start school next year, a year earlier than the usual starting age in Germany.

Children like Vincent -- little superbrains who devour stories of Winnie-the-Pooh and reports on the Mars rover Curiosity with equal enthusiasm -- are increasingly common. Just this April, the British branch of high-IQ society Mensa admitted 4-year-old Heidi Hankins to its ranks. By definition, the average IQ is 100; above 130 is considered gifted. Heidi's is 159.

And Heidi is not even Mensa's youngest member. In 2009, the society inducted little Elise Tan Roberts of London with an IQ of 156. Elise could spell her name, list 35 world capitals and discuss various types of triangles. At the time, she was 2 years old.

This obsession with numbers is not without its controversies. "IQ tests are not yet reliable at such a young age," says Tanja Baudson, a psychologist at the University of Trier, in southwestern Germany, who specializes in research on the intellectually gifted. Up until puberty, she says, those IQ levels may develop very differently for Vincent, Heidi and Elise.

A Mind-Boggling Trend

Still, the three children provide an example of a global trend widely acknowledged by specialists in this field: From one generation to the next, children are performing better on IQ tests. In Germany, scores increase by about 3 IQ points each decade. In fact, the tests have to be adjusted every few years to keep up. The test currently used for children is called the WISC-IV. A person claiming to have an IQ of 130 needs to specify which test generated that result: WISC-III? WISC-IV?

The astonishing upward trend in IQ levels is known as the "Flynn effect," named after American political scientist James Flynn, who is now in his late seventies and lives in New Zealand. The emeritus professor with a full white beard published a new book this month, "Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century," in which he seeks to elucidate this phenomenon.

In the book, Flynn offers a level-headed analysis of the limits and possibilities of intelligence tests. Germany falls in the middle of the Flynn effect phenomenon, with an annual increase of 0.35 IQ points, while countries such as Brazil and Turkey are catching up nearly twice as fast. China has long been playing in the top league, with an average IQ of 105.

Developing countries such as Kenya are also making gains. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is making less progress -- Flynn surmises this is because being subsidized by petrodollars provides little motivation for learning.

Such findings refute the claims of those who warn that humanity is getting dumber. We're "amusing ourselves to death," American media theorist and critic Neil Postman argued in a 1985 book of the same name. Postman blamed television for a decline in cognitive skills. Since then, however, the average IQ in the US has risen by nearly 10 points.

Obama’s Geopolitical China ‘Pivot’: The Pentagon Targets China

Global Research
F. William Engdhal

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the nominal end of the Cold War some twenty years back, rather than reducing the size of its mammoth defense spending, the US Congress and all US Presidents have enormously expanded spending for new weapons systems, increased permanent military bases around the world and expansion of NATO not only to former Warsaw Pact countries on Russia’s immediate periphery; it also has expanded NATO and US military presence deep into Asia on the perimeters of China through its conduct of the Afghan war and related campaigns.

Part I The Pentagon Targets China 

On the basis of simple dollar outlays for military spending, the US Pentagon combined budget, leaving aside the huge budgets for such national security and defense-related agencies of US Government as the Department of Energy and US Treasury and other agencies, the US Department of Defense spent some $739 billion in 2011 on its military requirements. Were all other spending that is tied to US defense and national security included, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates an annual military spending of over $1 trillion by the United States. That is an amount greater than the total defense-related spending of the next 42 nations combined, and more than the Gross Domestic Product of most nations.

China officially spent barely 10% of the US outlay on its defense, some $90 billions, or, if certain defense-related arms import and other costs are included, perhaps $111 billion a year. Even if the Chinese authorities do not publish complete data on such sensitive areas, it is clear China spends a mere fraction of the USA and is starting from a military-technology base far behind the USA.

China today, because of its dynamic economic growth and its determination to pursue sovereign Chinese national interests, merely because China exists, is becoming the Pentagon new “enemy image,” now replacing the earlier “enemy image” of Islam used after September 2001 by the Bush-Cheney Administration to justify the Pentagon’s global power pursuit, or that of Soviet Communism during the Cold War. The new US military posture against China has nothing to do with any aggressive threat from the side of China. The Pentagon has decided to escalate its aggressive military posture to China merely because China has become a strong vibrant independent pole in world economics and geopolitics. Only vassal states need apply to Washington’s globalized world.

Obama Doctrine: China is the new ‘enemy image’

After almost two decades of neglect of its interests in East Asia, in 2011, the Obama Administration announced that the US would make “a strategic pivot” in its foreign policy to focus its military and political attention on the Asia-Pacific, particularly Southeast Asia, that is, China. The term “strategic pivot” is a page out of the classic textbook from the father of British geopolitics, Sir Halford Mackinder, who spoke at various times of Russia and later China as “pivot powers” whose geographical and geopolitical position posed unique challenges toAnglo-Saxon and after 1945, to American hegemony.

During the final months of 2011 the Obama Administration clearly defined a new public military threat doctrine for US military readiness in the wake of the US military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. During a Presidential trip to the Far East, while in Australia, the US President unveiled what is being termed the Obama Doctrine.[1]

Obama told the Australians then:

With most of the world’s nuclear power and some half of humanity, Asia will largely define whether the century ahead will be marked by conflict or cooperation...As President, I have, therefore, made a deliberate and strategic decision -- as a Pacific nation, the United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future...I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority...As we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region. We will preserve our unique ability to project power and deter threats to peace...Our enduring interests in the region demand our enduring presence in the region.

The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay. Indeed, we are already modernizing America’s defense posture across the Asia Pacific. It will be more broadly distributed -- maintaining our strong presence in Japan and the Korean Peninsula, while enhancing our presence in Southeast Asia. Our posture will be more flexible -- with new capabilities to ensure that our forces can operate freely .. I believe we can address shared challenges, such as proliferation and maritime security, including cooperation in the South China Sea.[2]

The centerpiece of Obama's visit was the announcement that at least 2,500 elite US Marines will be stationed in Darwin in Australia’s Northern Territory. In addition, in a series of significant parallel agreements, discussions with Washington were underway to fly long-range American surveillance drones from the remote Cocos Islands — an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean. Also the US will gain greater use of Australian Air Force bases for American aircraft and increased ship and submarine visits to the Indian Ocean through a naval base outside Perth, on the country’s west coast.

The Pentagon’s target is China.

To make the point clear to European members of NATO, in remarks to fellow NATO members in Washington in July 2012, Phillip Hammond, the UK Secretary of State for Defense declared explicitly that the new US defense shift to the Asia-Pacific region was aimed squarely at China. Hammond said that, "the rising strategic importance of the Asia-Pacific region requires all countries, but particularly the United States, to reflect in their strategic posture the emergence of China as a global power. Far from being concerned about the tilt to Asia-Pacific, the European NATO powers should welcome the fact that the US is willing to engage in this new strategic challenge on behalf of the alliance." [3]

As with many of its operations, the Pentagon deployment is far deeper than the relatively small number of 2,500 new US soldiers might suggest.

In August 2011 the Pentagon presented its annual report on China’s military. It stated that China had closed key technological gaps. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for East Asia, Michael Schiffer, said that the pace and scope of China's military investments had "allowed China to pursue capabilities that we believe are potentially destabilizing to regional military balances, increase the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculation and may contribute to regional tensions and anxieties." [4] He cited Chinese refurbishing of a Soviet-era aircraft carrier and China’s development of its J20 Stealth Fighter as indications of the new capability requiring a more active US military response. Schiffer also cited China's space and cyber operations, saying it was "developing a multi-dimensional program to improve its capabilities to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by adversaries during times of crisis or conflict." [5]

Part II: Pentagon’s ‘Air-Sea Battle’

The Pentagon strategy to defeat China in a coming war, details of which have filtered into the US press, is called “Air-Sea Battle.” This calls for an aggressive coordinated US attack. US stealth bombers and submarines would knock out China's long-range surveillance radar and precision missile systems deep inside the country. This initial "blinding campaign" would be followed by a larger air and naval assault on China itself.[6] Crucial to the advanced pentagon strategy, deployment of which has already quietly begun, is US military navy and air presence in Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam and across the South China Sea and Indian Ocean. Australian troop and naval deployment is aimed at accessing the strategic Chinese South China Sea as well as the Indian Ocean. The stated motive is to “protect freedom of navigation” in the Malacca Straits and the South China Sea. In reality it is to be positioned to cut China’s strategic oil routes in event of full conflict.

Air-Sea Battle's goal is to help US forces withstand an initial Chinese assault and counterattack to destroy sophisticated Chinese radar and missile systems built to keep US ships away from China's coastline.[7]

US ‘Air-Sea Battle’ against China

In addition to the stationing of the US Marines in the north of Australia, Washington plans to fly long-range American surveillance drones from the remote Cocos Islands — an Australian territory in the strategically vital Indian Ocean. Also it will have use of Australian Air Force bases for American military aircraft and increased ship and submarine visits to the Indian Ocean through a naval base outside Perth, on Australia’s west coast.[8]

The architect of the Pentagon anti-China strategy of Air-Sea battle is Andrew Marshall, the man who has shaped Pentagon advanced warfare strategy for more than 40 years and among whose pupils were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. [9] Since the 1980s Marshall has been a promoter of an idea first posited in 1982 by Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, then chief of the Soviet general staff, called RMA, or 'Revolution in Military Affairs.’ Marshall, today at the ripe age of 91, still holds his desk and evidently very much influence inside the Pentagon.

The best definition of RMA was the one provided by Marshall himself: “A Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is a major change in the nature of warfare brought about by the innovative application of new technologies which, combined with dramatic changes in military doctrine and operational and organizational concepts, fundamentally alters the character and conduct of military operations.” [10]

It was also Andrew Marshall who convinced US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his successor Robert Gates to deploy the Ballistic Missile “defense” Shield in Poland, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Japan as a strategy to minimize any potential nuclear threat from Russia and, in the case of Japan’s BMD, any potential nuclear threat from China.

PART III: ‘String of Pearls’ Strategy of Pentagon

In January 2005, Andrew Marshall issued a classified internal report to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld titled “Energy Futures in Asia.” The Marshall report, which was leaked in full to a Washington newspaper, invented the term “string of pearls” strategy to describe what it called the growing Chinese military threat to “US strategic interests” in the Asian space.[11]

The internal Pentagon report claimed that “China is building strategic relationships along the sea lanes from the Middle East to the South China Sea in ways that suggest defensive and offensive positioning to protect China’s energy interests, but also to serve broad security objectives.”

In the Pentagon Andrew Marshall report, the term China’s “String of Pearls” Strategy was used for the first time. It is a Pentagon term and not a Chinese term.

The report stated that China was adopting a “string of pearls” strategy of bases and diplomatic ties stretching from the Middle East to southern China that includes a new naval base under construction at the Pakistani port of Gwadar. It claimed that “Beijing already has set up electronic eavesdropping posts at Gwadar in the country’s southwest corner, the part nearest the Persian Gulf. The post is monitoring ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and the Arabian Sea.” [12]

The Marshall internal report went on to warn of other “pearls” in the sea-lane strategy of China:

• Bangladesh: China is strengthening its ties to the government and building a container port facility at Chittagong. The Chinese are “seeking much more extensive naval and commercial access” in Bangladesh.

• Burma: China has developed close ties to the military regime in Rangoon and turned a nation wary of China into a “satellite” of Beijing close to the Strait of Malacca, through which 80 percent of China’s imported oil passes. China is building naval bases in Burma and has electronic intelligence gathering facilities on islands in the Bay of Bengal and near the Strait of Malacca. Beijing also supplied Burma with “billions of dollars in military assistance to support a de facto military alliance,” the report said.

• Cambodia: China signed a military agreement in November 2003 to provide training and equipment. Cambodia is helping Beijing build a railway line from southern China to the sea.

• South China Sea: Chinese activities in the region are less about territorial claims than “protecting or denying the transit of tankers through the South China Sea,” the report said. China also is building up its military forces in the region to be able to “project air and sea power” from the mainland and Hainan Island. China recently upgraded a military airstrip on Woody Island and increased its presence through oil drilling platforms and ocean survey ships.

• Thailand: China is considering funding construction of a $20 billion canal across the Kra Isthmus that would allow ships to bypass the Strait of Malacca. The canal project would give China port facilities, warehouses and other infrastructure in Thailand aimed at enhancing Chinese influence in the region, the report said... The U.S. military’s Southern Command produced a similar classified report in the late 1990s that warned that China was seeking to use commercial port facilities around the world to control strategic “chokepoints.” [13]

Breaking the String of Pearls

Significant Pentagon and US actions since that 2005 report have been aimed to counter China’s attempts to defend its energy security via that “String of Pearls.” The US interventions since 2007 into Burma/Myanmar have had two phases.

The first was the so-called Saffron Revolution, a US State Department and CIA-backed destabilization in 2007 aimed at putting the international spotlight on the Myanmar military dictatorship’s human rights practices. The aim was to further isolate the strategically located country internationally from all economic relations, aside from China. The background to the US actions was China’s construction of oil and gas pipelines from Kunming in China’s southwest Yunnan Province, across the old Burma Road across Myanmar to the Bay of Bengal across from India and Bangladesh in the northern Indian Ocean.

Is the Carbon Tax the Death of Democracy?

DiscerningKate
Kate Johnston

On July 1st 2012, Australia joined nations around the world in their move towards a carbon economy through the implementation of a Carbon Tax, which will become an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2015. Yet the underpinning justification for this move, the science behind man-made global warming, is not even close to being settled. In fact, an increasingly large body of scientists and researchers are telling us the exact opposite of what the United Nations and governments around the world would have us believe. It is now evident that the science behind man-made global warming that dictates government policy is false, manipulated and corrupt and exists solely to meet a pre-determined political agenda whilst attempting to pass it off as credible science.

Central to this article is the role of the United Nations in all of this. Their treaties, summits and bodies have been responsible for providing the framework and political will  that has moved the ‘environmental movement’ to where it is today.

This article seeks to go into more depth into current day science which overwhelmingly suggests that global warming is not caused by human Carbon Dioxide emissions. Furthermore, I will outline the role of key players on the international stage that have worked tirelessly to convince us otherwise.

Finally, I will begin to look in more depth at what the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is and where it actually originated. As the article progresses it will become clearer that the Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme do absolutely nothing for the environment. Given this is the pretext used by governments for introducing carbon economy, I will attempt to convey some deeper social, political and economic influences at work here. In doing so, I hope to assist in understanding the reasons why we are moving towards a carbon economy and how this global movement abolishes our inalienable rights as human beings and basic freedoms – most of which many of us take for granted.

The United Nation Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC)

According to the UN IPCC’s website “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.”

The UN IPCC’s findings are directly responsible for government policy being implemented around the world and this is carried out through four assessment reports produced in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007. There are currently 192 countries signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – an important international framework that commits governments to tackle climate change through a reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions. There are 194 recognised countries in the world (depending on your source).

Despite its global dominance, overwhelming evidence suggests that these powerful assessment reports that dictate policy and directly responsible for the introduction of the Carbon Tax are false and full of misinformation. How is it that such a powerful tool as the United Nations with immense influence over world governments was able to progress so far in an agenda that was based on lies?

Key Players

One name that constantly comes up in regards to the global ‘environmental movement’ (Climate Change Industry) is Maurice Strong. Strong has been driving the climate change bandwagon since its origins back in the 70′s. Having made his fortune in oil, Maurice became very involved with the United Nations and headed many programs and summits on climate change. Maurice Strong fled to China in 2006 after being implicated in a million dollar bribe to himself involving the Oil for Food Program. He has been there ever since and is still very active in the ‘environmental movement’.

To further understand how we got ourselves to where we are today, we have to understand where the myth of man-made global warming really gained traction. Al Gore’s book and ‘documentary’ - An Inconvenient Truth - was a hit worldwide, it even received not one but two Oscars! Reminds me of when Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize – what a joke! Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, was highly successful in instilling fear around the world that imminent climate cataclysmic events would soon follow all because of human produced Carbon Dioxide. The documentary spread like wild fire and found its way into classrooms across America. The fate of humanity was sealed; disaster would fall upon us and entire cities would be under water, unless, we acted now. Complete lies!

So what else do these two powerful men have in common besides being strong proponents behind the ‘environmental movement’? It’s called The Chicago Climate Exchange and it is North America’s sole carbon exchange centre (think stock market). Yes, that’s right these men are raking in massive profits from the global Emissions Trading Scheme. Conflict of interest? I think so! The same men that sold us the myth of man-made global warming are the same men that sold us the ‘solution’ of a Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme and now they’re profiting off their lucrative investments which are based on lies.

Dr. Vincent Gray senior climate skeptic and UN IPCC expert reviewer

Dr. Vincent Gray is an internationally eminent retired scientist with a Phd in Chemistry from Cambridge, who enjoyed a long career as a coal industry researcher before spending the last 22 years of his life in climate science. He lives off his pension and receives no funding for his climate research work, hence his interest in the climate debate is not influenced by any financial ties or interests.

He has published hundreds of scientific papers spanning many topics with several on climate appearing in peer-reviewed publications. But due to the institutional corruption and politicisation surrounding the Climate Change debate, much of his work is censored. He also authored two books; The Climate Change Delusion and Confessions of a Climate Skeptic.

Dr Vincent Gray is an expert reviewer of all four UN IPCC assessment reports and is responsible for over 1000′s of comments on the reports most of which were ignored. The blatant disregard of contrary scientific findings by the UN IPCC conveys the UN IPCC political agenda at the expense of the science. Dr Vincent Gray’s comments were not peer-reviewed; an essential method used in the science world to ensure consensus and accurate scientific findings.

In an interview with Dr. Vincent Gray, I asked him about the UN IPCC’s credibility and track record.

“The 1992 Rio Conference endorsed a legally binding definition of ‘Climate Change’  that the climate is largely controlled by human-produced trace gases.”

“They wished to show that the globe is warming, but this cannot be done as it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth.”

I delved further, questioning the system that governs the Climate Change Industry where Dr Vincent provided some further interesting insight.

“The whole system is supported, supervised and financed by the governments who signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

“They intimidated editors of scientific journals to control the ‘peer review’ process in their favour.”

“They took control of many university departments, National science organisations and media outlets.”

“People who tell the truth are intimidated.”

Dr Vincent’s comments on the UN IPCC reports conveys the inherent institutional corruption that occurred allowing inaccurate science of ‘man-made global warming’ to infiltrate society’s perceptions thus forming the foundation of government policy.

Science – The Facts

The next section of this article will be concerned with the science underpinning man-made global warming, specifically human Carbon Dioxide emissions and whether or not humans are responsible for a rise in temperatures, Global Warming and/or Climate Change. This key point is at the heart of the entire debate because it is on this false and misleading science that a global re-structuring of the economy, politics and society as we know it is occurring. So if the science that justifies the Carbon Tax, Emissions Trading Scheme and other massive global transformations are in fact based on lies, wouldn’t you like to know?

Firstly, the world hasn’t actually been warming since 1998, it’s been cooling. This explains why ‘Global Warming’ has been re-branded as ‘Climate Change’. UN IPCC’s underpinning science purports that a rise in man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions is responsible for a rise in temperature, but this simply isn’t true. It is the other way around. It is temperatures that dictate Carbon Dioxide levels. Dr. Tim Ball a prominent speaker on Climate change and climate skeptic outlines this in a radio interview with Alan Jones.

UN IPCC temperature data, from which their conclusions on man-made global warming are drawn, is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. The data is taken from weather stations from around the world and then assembled into computer models which frame our understanding of global warming today. Yet in 1990 when over 6000 weather stations worldwide were being used, three quarters dropped out which left a clear bias towards warmer temperature recordings from the remaining active weather stations. This suggests that the recent warming that we know of is connected to the methods of recording and not an actual increase in temperature. More details about how this crucial data is flawed can be found within this report from Science and Public Policy.

Dr. Vincent Courtillot, Professor of Geophysics at University Paris Diderot formed a research group with other established scientists from around Europe to determine the cause of temperature fluctuation. After requesting UN IPCC’s data that forms their theory of man-made Global Warming, he was denied, therefore he and his group had to re-collate the data independently. His research found that temperature change is determined solely by Solar activity. Yes, that’s right the sun dictates temperature, not Carbon Dioxide levels of which humans have a minuscule influence compared to what is produced naturally by nature. Their scientific findings are well documented and can be viewed here. 

And what about the global rise in sea levels devastating coastal cities around the world? Well science around the world shows no change in Global Sea levels, with Tidal Gauge stations recording an average of 18cm Global Sea Level Rise every century with no variation recorded during increased temperatures. That’s 1.8mm a year. This information can be viewed from a joint report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change – A consortium of independent scientists established to analyse published and peer-reviewed literature available on global warming from around the world producing a report that directly responds to the UN IPCC’s reports. Another excellent research paper on sea level rise around the world can be viewedhere.

A 1000 international Scientists who dissent and disagree with man-made global warming speak out in the Climate Depot Report. One scientist, Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center said:

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”

The information is available for anyone to read. We have been lied to. Global warming is a scam. But why has the United Nations gone to such great lengths to have us believe otherwise? Is an Emissions Trading Scheme so important? Or is there something else going on?

The Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme

The initial step of the Carbon Tax in the move towards a Carbon Economy is underway. If left unchallenged, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will be introduced in 2015 paving the way for the new Global Carbon Economy. This integrated global economic system is based on trading and control of carbon emissions. This is how it works; companies are designated with an amount of carbon credits in line with the government’s cap of carbon emissions that they’re allowed to emit. Companies that emit less are left with carbon credits which can be sold for a profit. Alternatively, if they use all their credits they purchase more carbon credits from companies around the world on the carbon exchange market. The idea is to give an economic incentive to polluters to reduce their carbon footprint. As the world moves closer to their goal of reducing emissions as outlined at the United Nations Kyoto protocol, we are told that we are helping the environment by limiting pollution. But again, the incentive for polluters only occurs if it is profitable. There is much criticism about the effectiveness of this system where it is currently implemented in Europe and has nothing short of failed. Fraud and corruption are rife and emissions have not yet been reduced – and even if they were it wouldn’t actually have any effect on the climate change anyway!

Eventually the Emissions Trading Scheme and carbon credits will be transferred to individuals in the form of a carbon card, much like a credit card we use today only it is for our energy consumption. Individuals will be designated with an annual carbon allowance to meet their energy, fuel and travel needs. The concept remains the same as the Emissions Trading Scheme, only the individual is designated carbon credits to be exchanged on the Carbon Stock Exchange markets. Plans in the UK for the carbon trading credit cards are well underway and will follow around the world soon enough. As nations attempt to meet their emission reduction goals, individual carbon allowances will also be capped and decrease over time.

This system of carbon trading and carbon economy is in the hands of themajor banks such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. Personally, I don’t feel too good about handing over the reigns of control of many aspects of my life to be regulated by the banks and governments. How do you feel about that?

Social Transformation

As we slowly move into a carbon currency, we replace our current price based system with one that deals with energy, which will essentially lead to a cashless society. We are already seeing this happening voluntarily around the world. As people increasingly start to use their credit cards for all their transactions, money in circulation will eventually be replaced with purely electronic transactions and energy allowances or individual carbon credits. This was on the Bilderberg 2012′s Agenda with the move towards electronic I.D. cards already happening – an essential step towards a cashless society. Every detail about us is recorded on these cards through micro chip technology. But keep in mind, individuals in a cashless society hands over all their rights to the government and banks that control the system.

Another worrying aspect of the ‘environmental movement’ in the name of ‘saving the planet’ is the United Nations’ Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development, adopted by more than 178 governments around the world at the United Nations Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Agenda 21 is a detailed global action plan already adopted and being implemented by governments around the world which openly calls for population reduction, abolition of property rights and a complete re-structuring of populations around the world into high-volume smart cities. This is not a joke; it is an United Nations international treaty and a working document that governments are already implementing on both national and local level. I will dedicate an entire article to this issue in the coming weeks.

But probably of most interest about the Emissions Trading Scheme and the move towards a carbon economy is its startling parallels with Technocracy. Technocracy is a social movement and alternative political system that gained quite a bit of traction in the US in the 1930′s during the Great Depression. It is a social, economic and political system based on individual’s energy consumption and is controlled wholly by experts and scientists – not elected leaders like the system we live in today. Instead of people being rewarded with money for their work, they would be given energy allowances. One key aspect of Technocracy is the Energy Distribution Card. Sounds familiar? Well it should, the idea is being rolled out around the world now all in the name of fighting man-made global warming yet the idea originated long before man-made global warming even existed. Are we moving towards a Technocratic society?

Central to Technocracy is a system that allows for the measurement of energy consumption of both individuals and households. The political system cannot be implemented otherwise. This may sounds familiar to some of you as the Smart Grid and Smart Meters currently being rolled out around the world. This technology is being hooked up to households around the world and infrastructure is being designed that will allow Smart Grids to be integrated into a much larger global system of measuring energy production and consumption.

A brilliant question by Patrick Wood, “Who is orchestrating this?”

So now what?

All of the ‘solutions’ I have outlined in this article are being sold to the world via media and education in the name of ‘saving the environment’. But the very same entities responsible for creating the ‘solutions’, are the ones responsible for the problem to begin with and pose a serious threat towards truly sustainable solutions. The state of technology and resources existing today to transform our society towards a truly sustainable global community are infinite. All that stands in our way are the political, economic and social systems currently in place. But we must remember that they only exist because we allow them too.

One way or another a fundamental transformation of our global society is underway. The only question we need ask ourselves is do we want to be a part of the alternative and co-create a sustainable global community together? Or do we want to let the bankers, politicians and technocrats do it for us under the guise of ‘sustainability’ whilst moving towards a world where every aspect of our lives are governed and controlled. Freedom as we know it will no longer exist and along with our freedom will go the mechanisms that are now available to us to protect it.

Things are moving fast, faster than we can comprehend. It’s time to make your choice. By doing nothing, you are complicit to their plan. By remaining indifferent you allow this repressive and controlling global system to be built right in front of your very eyes. But by saying no, educating yourself and beginning to actively participate in opposing this system you make room for the new fair, equal and just paradigm. A world to be built by the collective, by all of us. An alternative system that we can all be proud to call our own. We don’t have much time left, we must act and we must act now.

Palestine solidarity on trial

Socialist Alternative

Palestine solidarity campaigners on 1 July last year.

On 1 May 19 Melbourne activists will be put on trial for their political activity. In a precedent-setting case, these pro-Palestine activists will be fighting a variety of charges designed to criminalise dissent in Baillieu’s Victoria and intimidate supporters of Palestine in Australia.

On 1 July 2011, Victoria Police attacked a peaceful demonstration in Melbourne’s CBD. In one of the largest political arrests in a decade, 19 activists were detained during a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) action against the Max Brenner store. The chocolateria is owned by Israeli conglomerate the Strabdsuss Group, a company that provides “care rations” for the Israeli military, including the Golani and the Givati brigades. These were two of the key Israeli military brigades involved in Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza in December 2008/January 2009 that killed more than 1300 Palestinians. In more recent times the Golani brigade has been noted for its brutal enforcement of Israeli colonisation of Palestinian Hebron in the West Bank.

After a series of peaceful demonstrations against Max Brenner, the 1 July action was kettled by police before activists were individually targeted in an unprovoked attack by the riot squad. The police used pressure point tactics on some of the demonstrators; others reported bruising and rough treatment. One woman had her shoulder dislocated.

Damian Ridgwell, one of the arrested protesters told Electronic Intifada about his experience:
I was dragged behind police lines. Once they grabbed me and started dragging me, I went limp and dropped to the ground… As I was being carried through the corridors of the loading dock, I lost consciousness because one of the police had me in a choke hold. I am not sure how long I was out, probably a few minutes. I woke up on the loading dock floor and heard the police saying I was “out”.
The majority of those arrested were charged with trespass in a public place (yes that is apparently a crime) and besetting (an archaic law that means “to surround a building”); a small number were also charged with behaving in a “riotous manner”.

After attending another protest, four of these nineteen protesters were again arrested (for breaking their bail conditions) in dawn raids on their homes. These anti-democratic conditions stipulated that activists may not return within fifty metres of Max Brenner stores in the Melbourne CBD. Three were released from jail on a bail of $2,000 each. One of the more prominent campaigners, Vashti Kenway, was made to pay a $10,000 bail or face prison. All up the activists are facing fines of around $30,000.

Carbon levy booklet fails fact check

Sidney Morning Herald

Fact check fail ... the Climate Change Department

THE 20-page colour booklet What a Carbon Price Means for You, which was mailed to 10 million households in August, may become something of a collectors item.

The Audit Office has found the Climate Change Department used it to make 99 claims about climate change and the carbon tax, 32 of which it was unable to fully back up in the accompanying documentation, including the claim ''nine in 10 households will receive some combination of tax cuts and increased payments to help them with the cost-of-living impact of the carbon price''.

The Audit Office says the department relied on a document that stated ''about'' nine in 10 households would receive such assistance.

 

The booklet said more than 4 million households would get assistance that was ''at least'' 20 per cent more than their average price impact, whereas the source document said the assistance would be ''around'' 20 per cent more.

The department established a fact-checking matrix purporting to allow it to reference each of the 142 claims made in the radio, television, print and mailout campaign but, when checked by the Audit Office, 52 of the references were found to fall short.

In its response to the audit, the Department of Climate Change said all of the claims in the campaign could be supported by evidence.

The department pleaded ''difficult circumstances'' and a ''complex policy package'' that relied heavily on the work of other agencies.

Prosperity or Suicide: A tale of two climate policies

Activist Post
James Corbett

A controversial carbon tax is set to pass the Australian Senate this week, even as the Irish government has decided it will put its own climate legislation on the back burner and a new British study finds that after two brutally harsh winters in a row, the Brits are more concerned with heating their homes than meeting their legally-binding emission reduction targets.

Are we witnessing the withering denouement of the whole global warming climate change climate disruption fiasco? If so, it couldn’t have come at a better time; the glitterati of the Hollywood “activist” community are preparing to descend on Durban for COP17, the annual UN self-immolation-fest where carbon eugenicists and Hollywood hypocrites congregate each year to do their thing…and by “their thing” I mean flying thousands of miles in their private jets and driving the few miles from their airport in their stretch limousines to lecture the little people about having the audacity to want to take one flight a year to go on vacation (when they can afford it). Did I mention that the COP conference generates as much as 41,000 tons of carbon “equivalent,” roughly equal to the same amount of emissions produced by a city the size of Manchester in the same period?

The UN climate conference has descended into self-parodying farce, as country after country is turning away from economically disastrous climate policies in the name of crackpot science claiming that humans can prevent the global thermostat from going up 2°C. Perhaps the nations of the world have finally realized that all of these numbers -- the 350 ppm of carbon dioxide and the 2°C warming and the 50% emission cuts -- are all completely arbitrary. Or perhaps they realized that climate science increasingly relies on computer models instead of actual science. Maybe it’s because recent studies disprove the carbon dioxide/temperature link at the very heart of the scare? Or it could be that the globe has failed to warm over the past decade despite the biggest spikes in carbon emissions yet.


Of course, the warmists will tell you that global warming in fact predicts the bitterly cold winters and record snowfalls across the Northern hemisphere in recent years. But then they also said that global warming predicted less snowfall. They will also tell you (in peer-reviewed literature, no less) that manmade carbon emissions are behind the speeding up of the Gulf Stream and the slowing down of the Gulf Stream, an increase in malaria and a decrease in malaria, more North Atlantic cyclones and less North Atlantic cyclones, the embiggenning of squids and the ensmallening of squids, less rain in the Sahel and more rain in the Sahel (and even less or more rain in the Sahel) and dozens of other cases in which every possible scenario leads to exactly one culprit: human civilization.

Ever since the breaking of climategate, the public at large has increasingly woken up to the agenda; one that was set out in black and white by the Club of Rome in their 1991 book The First Global Revolution:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

And now we have finally arrived at the spot where the politicians are beginning to accept the reality that their long-dreamed-of carbon tax power grab is politically viable no more…except in Australia. What Australia hopes to achieve by implementing its own scheme for carbon suicide -- a bizarre mish-mash of carbon tax and emissions trading that the majority of Australians are against -- is not exactly clear. It has already raised the ire of one chemical company, a methanol producer that would have produced $14 billion in export earnings if it weren’t for the tax, which would cost them $1 billion. Their solution? Move to China, where there is no tax…but emission productions are four times higher.

And so as our brethren down under prepare for the dismantling of their economy in the name of the problem that never was, the otherwise free peoples of the world wish them luck. They’re going to need it. But at least the contrast will be stark and apparent between those countries that have chosen to abandon the climate craziness and those like Australia that continue to pursue this madness right down to their frosty graves.

For more information about Corbett and his background, please listen to Episode 163 of The Corbett Report podcast, Meet James Corbett.  His sites Fukushima Update and Climategate TV are also indispensible tools for research and real news.

 

UK climate sceptic finds no takers

Editors Note:  If you can't win.  Run away!  In the name of science!

New Zealand Herald

Prominent climate sceptic Christopher Monckton has arrived in New Zealand for a series of public talks, but his hosts are struggling to find a platform for his views.

Scientists approached to challenge the hereditary peer say debating well-established facts about climate change is a backward step which is bound to mislead the public.

The eccentric Viscount Monckton, a former journalist and politician, was invited by Climate Realists New Zealand, a group founded by Gisborne farmers Neil and Esther Henderson.

The group shares Viscount Monckton's view that humans have minimal impact on climate. Climate Realists had planned to pit him against meteorologists, politicians and environmentalists, but all parties have turned down invitations to a debate.

Viscount Monckton comes to New Zealand after a troubled tour of Australia, where he was banned from four venues after referring to the Government's former climate adviser Professor Ross Garnaut as a Nazi.

TVNZ's Close Up and Q+A reportedly expressed interest in interviewing him but both backed out after no alternative voice could be found.

Green Party MP and climate change spokesman Kennedy Graham, who was invited to challenge the Englishman, said there was no longer a debate about greenhouse gases.

"The climate change challenge is not being properly met if we continually relitigate the science, which has been largely settled by consensus globally. While we respect everybody's personal view, there is no longer a debate about the science - it's about how you handle it."

Climate scientist Jim Salinger said he was not available for the debate, but would have refused anyway: "I'm perfectly happy to discuss the science with someone who fully engages in the science and who is a scientist. But when you have someone who cherry-picks and changes the subject, it's pointless." Groups associated with Viscount Monckton's tour have come under fire.

PRINZ, the PR group which was facilitating several of his events, pulled out of the Auckland leg, citing poor registration for the $50-a-head meeting. PRINZ acting chief Tim Marshall said the main reason for pulling out was lack of interest, but he acknowledged his organisation had come under pressure from its members and the public for giving Viscount Monckton a platform. PRINZ will continue to facilitate the Wellington event, where registrations are stronger.

The group said it did not endorse Viscount Monckton's views but wanted to host a debate which dealt with the issues of communication around climate change. But after no alternative voice could be found for the Auckland debate, an academic with a sceptical standpoint was enlisted.

Wellington PR consultancy Four Winds Communications is a sponsor of PRINZ, and said it had also received negative feedback for its peripheral connection to the tour.

Managing partner Daniel Paul also said his organisation did not share Viscount Monckton's stance, but added that "everyone was entitled to a view".

New studies reveal evidence that cell phone radiation damages DNA, brain, and sperm

Kurzweil

New independent studies offer proof that confirms findings from the Council of Europe: pulsed digital signals from cell phones disrupt DNA, impair brain function, and lower sperm count, according to a statement by the Environmental Health Trust (EHT).

On May 23, a think-tank of experts organized by Gazi University and EHT convened at a workshop in Istanbul, Turkey, “Science Update: Cell Phones and Health,” to present the findings.

Prof. Nesrin Seyhan , WHO and NATO advisor and head and founder of the Biophysics Department and Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory at Gazi University in Ankara and founder of the Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (GNRP) Center, found that just four hours of exposure to RF-EMF disrupts the ability of human brain cells to repair damaged genes.

Other new work from Australia shows damage to human sperm.

“This work provides a warning signal to all of us. The evidence justifies precautionary measures to reduce the risks for every one of us,” says Prof. Wilhelm Mosgoeller from the Medical University of Vienna, who has led European research teams that found that RF-EMF induces DNA breaks.

Two years after false accusations against scientists who described DNA breaks, recent results finally show that exposure-induced DNA breaks are real, according to these scientists.

Impact on reproductive health and cell death

Insect studies have demonstrated that acute exposure to GSM (Global System for Mobile) signals brings about DNA fragmentation in insects’ ovarian cells, and consequently a large reduction in the reproductive capacity of the insects. Further studies demonstrated that long exposures induced cell death to the insects in the study.

Dr. Adamantia Fragopoulou, leader of a team at the University of Athens, found effects on embryonic development taking place in the presence of a mild electromagnetic field. Throughout the gestation period, exposure to radiation for just six minutes a day affects the bone formation of fetuses. The team suggests that this is possibly caused by the interaction of cell phone radiation with crucial molecules and ions involved in embryogenesis.

Impacts on the young brain

Dr. Seyhan found that the increasing use of cell phones — and the increasing number of associated base stations — are becoming a widespread source of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. This work suggests that some biological effects are likely to occur even with low-level electromagnetic fields. The team concluded that 900 and 1,800 MHz radiation levels is related to an increase in the permeability of the blood-brain barrier in young adult male rats. The rat’s brains can be used to correspond to the brains of human teenagers.

Children are increasingly heavy users of cell phones; at higher frequencies, children absorb more energy from external radio frequency radiation than adults, because their tissue normally contains a larger number of ions and so has a higher conductivity. They conclude limiting cell phone and cordless phone use by young children and teenagers to the lowest possible level and urgently ban telecom companies from marketing to them.

In addition, research from a team at the University of Athens found that rats exposed to cell phone radiation were unable to remember the location of places previously familiar to them. This finding is of potentially critical importance for people who heavily rely on spatial memory for recording information about their environment and spatial orientation.

Supermarkets busted for false fruit labelling

ABC Rural

Peter Darley, from the horticulture committee
of the NSW Farmers Association, expects more
cases of false fruit labelling to be uncovered by the
NSW Food Authority. (Brad Markham)

Two supermarkets in Sydney have been caught selling imported fruit as Australian.

Woolworths will pay a fine of $1,540 for advertising American lemons as Australian at its Newington store and Coles at St Marys will pay an $880 penalty for not disclosing its grapefruit was from Israel.

The supermarkets have been put on the NSW Food Authority's Name and Shame Register.

Peter Darley, on the Horticulture Committee of the NSW Farmers Association says the large food barns are the worst culprits at not displaying where the fresh fruit and vegetables come from.

"They're the ones that are certainly not complying and that's disappointing," he said.

"In one respect it's interesting to see that Woolworths and Coles have been caught in this, but I think there's a lot of others out there that will be caught in the investigations as the Food Authority steps up their investigations and inspections."

Woolworths says it was "an isolated case of human error", where individual lemons from the USA were correctly labelled, but the shelf said the lemons were Australian. The company says 97 per cent of its frest produce is locally grown. Coles has yet to respond to calls from the ABC.

Friends of Israel — Enemies Inside the Gates

Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken stands by his 9/11 conspiracy

Herald Sun

VICTORIAN Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken remains unrepentant after his controversial comments about the 9/11 attacks made news around the world.

Mr Bracken sparked outrage yesterday when he told Jon Faine's ABC talk-back program the attacks were not the result of terrorist activity.

He said the story was a conspiracy that "didn't stand up" to scientific scrutiny.

This morning Mr Bracken phoned into Faine's program again for a right of reply.

He said he wasn't phoning as the president of the Trades Hall council or as secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia.

Mr Bracken stood by his comments and said he had the support of 50 per cent of the community.

He also attacked Faine, claiming he was ridiculed on yesterday's program.

"Unfortunately cowards like yourself have set the political agenda in this country for too long," said Kevin Bracken.

"I won't be cowered down to bullies like yourself."

Yesterday, Julia Gillard has dismissed as "stupid and wrong" Mr Bracken's belief.

The Federal Opposition seized on the comments in Parliament, with Victorian MP Josh Frydenberg asking Ms Gillard what action she would take against Mr Bracken “to send a message that such remarks are unacceptable”, The Australian reported.

“Obviously I don’t agree with the remarks, obviously they are stupid and wrong,” Ms Gillard said.

“The Labor Party is a large organisation, people join it as individuals – we don’t dictate what people think.”

After being accused by Liberal frontbencher Christopher Pyne of not answering the question on discipline, Ms Gillard said: “If it is the intention of the Leader of the Opposition to expel every member who says something stupid, I’ll start sending him a weekly list.”

In Victoria, Shadow Attorney General Robert Clarke said Mr Bracken's comments were a direct insult to Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

"It strikes at the very heart of the West's struggle against terrorism and it is a disgrace that while Australian soldiers are serving and dying in Afghanistan that Mr Bracken make these wild claims that undermine the very reason for their presence in Afghanistan," he said.

Mr Clarke called on Premier John Brumby to condemn these comments in the strongest possible terms and for the outspoken union leader to be disciplined.

"The Trades Hall Council needs to consider Mr Bracken's future as its president and the MUA needs to consider his future as their secretary,'' he said.

"These comments can't stand they need to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.''

Trades Hall secretary Brian Boyd said Mr Bracken did not speak on behalf of the organisation.

"The official Trades Hall position is not to entertain that theory," Mr Boyd said.

"We had almost 3000 working people killed in that terrorist attack. It was a terrorist attack, and we condemn it."

Mr Boyd said Mr Bracken's views had caused many debates behind the walls of Trade Hall.

"He is welcome to his views and we've discussed his theories," he said.

"But I totally disagree."

Mr Boyd said he stood by his colleague despite his extremist views.

"99 per cent of the time Kevin's a very good president," he said.

MUA national secretary Paddy Crumlin distanced the union from the comment, releasing a statement saying its position on the attack was "unambiguous".

"The 9/11 tragedy was a result of a terrorist attack by international terrorists who claimed responsibility," he said.

"It is the MUA's position - one that I passionately support as national secretary - that this attack is one of the greatest affronts and abuses of human and civil rights in contemporary history."

This is not the first time Mr Bracken has voiced his controversial opinions on the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon.

In 2006 he told The Australian he believed the attacks only worked because the US Government was in some way involved.

"If they want to stop terrorism they've got to look at who was really behind September 11," Mr Bracken said at the time.

"It couldn't have happened unless there was participation from key elements of the American military and government and security services. I am not saying the whole lot were involved. But I believe the official story for September 11 doesn't stack up."

Mr Bracken said in 2006 his views on the terror laws and September 11 were his own, and he was not speaking on behalf of the union.

Obama Breaks Promise to Uphold and Enforce Whaling Ban

UPI

WASHINGTON, June 6 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama is breaking a campaign promise as his administration backs an effort to lift a 24-year ban on commercial whaling, critics say.

Environmentalists, already unhappy with the administration's allegedly lackluster response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, say the president is going back on his campaign pledge to end the slaughter of whales, FOX News reported Sunday.

The administration is leading a push within the International Whaling Commission to lift the ban on whaling against Japan, Norway and Iceland, the three countries in the commission still hunting whales, FOX News said.

The White House says a new agreement will save whales by keeping the three countries from exploiting loopholes in the current moratorium, but environmentalists say they aren't buying it.

"That moratorium on commercial whaling was the greatest conservation victory of the 20th century," Patrick Ramage of the International Fund for Animal Welfare said.

"And in 2010 to be waving the white flag or bowing to the stubbornness of the last three countries engaged in the practice is a mind-numbingly dumb idea," he said.

Australia has announced it will take Japan to the International Court of Justice to try to end its "scientific whaling" program in southern oceans, the Australian Broadcasting Corp. reported.

Australia expels Israeli diplomat over fake passports used in Dubai killing

Guardian

Investigators conclude Israel responsible for forging four Australian passports used in assassination of Hamas operative

The father of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, assassinated in Dubai, holds a photograph of his son. Photograph: Ali Ali/EPA

Australia today ordered the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat after investigators concluded that Israel was responsible for forging four Australian passports used in the killing of a Hamas operative in Dubai.

The move follows a similar step by Britain, which expelled an Israeli diplomat in March in retaliation for the use of 12 fake British passports in the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.

Dubai authorities blamed the Israeli Mossad intelligence service for the killing of Mabhouh in January.

The governments of Ireland, Germany and France have yet to reveal how they will react to the similar cases of alleged identity fraud against their citizens revealed in the investigation.

Australia has not expelled a foreign diplomat since 2004, and the country's foreign minister, Stephen Smith, told parliament that the operation to kill Mabhouh was not the first time Israel had forged Australian travel documents.

He did not elaborate on previous incidents, but said the latest transgression breached "confidential undertakings" between the two countries that have stood for several years.

"These are not the actions of a friend," he added. "This is not what we expect from a nation with whom we have had such a close, friendly and supportive relationship."

Smith said Israel had been asked to withdraw a diplomat, whom he did not identify, within a week. The duration of the expulsion is indefinite.

Israeli radio stations have reported that the diplomats expelled from Australia and Britain were Mossad representatives.

Yossi Levy, an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, told Israel's Army Radio he was confident that excellent relations between the two countries would continue.

"We regret the Australian move, which in our opinion does not conform to the kind of relations we have with Canberra and their importance," he said.

The Israeli ambassador to Australia, Yuval Rotem, is out of Australia until early next month.

Smith said Australia had notified the US of its decision because of Canberra's security alliance with Washington and the close US relationship with Tel Aviv. It had also informed the United Arab Emirates and all countries whose nationals claimed to have had identities stolen in the case.

He said Australian co-operation with Israel on security and intelligence matters would suffer.

"Clearly, as a result of today's events, there will be something of a cooling period so far as relevant agencies are concerned and, just as in the United Kingdom, time will tell just how long that may or may not be."

Israel had not retaliated against Britain's expulsion of a diplomat and Smith said he would be disappointed if Tel Aviv did so against Australia.

Dubai authorities have identified at least 26 suspects from an alleged hit squad.

Smith said: "The high quality of these counterfeited passports points to the involvement of a state intelligence service."

He added that Australia's investigation, carried out by police and intelligence services, "left the government in no doubt that Israel was responsible for the abuse and counterfeiting of these passports".

Israeli radio reported that Australia had expelled an Israeli diplomat in 2004 for his alleged involvement in helping two Israelis try to fraudulently obtain New Zealand passports. Neither the Israeli embassy nor Smith's department would confirm the report.

Two men described by the New Zealand government as Israeli intelligence agents spent three months in prison there after pleading guilty to passport fraud. They were then deported.