Oxfam does a great job given that they and many other NGO’s “are up against it” when it comes to government support.

Unfortunately, governments from developed countries like Australia and the US are paying lip service to their obligations under the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development’s Agenda 21 programme.

Andrew Hewett is right of course, the people most at risk from the impacts of climate change are those least able to adapt, let alone mitigate.
Why are not countries like Australia helping?

One could be forgiven for thinking it is all about power and control – of wealth and the masses.

In Australia (as in the United States), Clive Hamilton presents a very clear case of this power and control – through his book “Scorcher” – really the dirty politics of climate change.

The “developed” countries of the planet really do have an opportunity to make things better, for themselves and for others.

However, it is the lobbyists and political leaders with a blinkered vision (read blind) that have a vested interest in maintaining the “business as usual’ approach to climate change on the one hand, and “Peak” hydrocarbons (oil, gas, coal) on the other.

One way they do this is by subverting the science behind climate change. Look at the Global Warming Swindle "swindle" coming up next week on the ABC - a masterly stroke by the controversial UK Channel 4 to discredit the science behind climate change.

Australia doesn’t need those leaders, neither does the world.

"After all it is the world's wealthiest nations that are responsible, for the most part, for our changing climate ......"

This is merely the author's opinion: one pushed by the media in their constant quest for sensationalism and scare-mongering opportunities.

The scientists who say that it is nature, not human emissions, causing climate change are kept out of the discussion as much as possible.

It never ceases to amaze me, however, that the people who blame human activities for climate change never mention our increasing population as a possible factor; no, they just blame the evil developed world and, as this welfare king has done, cynically exploit climate change to further extract money from the developed world to give to millions of backward people who have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that they are incapable of using financial aid it to good effect

In fact this whole article is just espousing the usual apocalyptic predictions:
"Climate change is arguably the gravest threat ever faced by humanity."
"more of a threat to global peace and security than terrorism and diseases"
"millions of people displaced"
"climate change refugees"
"to keep global warming below 2C"

So far the greatest threat has amounted to at most a 0.6 degree rise in temperature. I don't think anyone has been displaced yet, let alone millions. The so-called warming isn't progressing very quickly at the moment, in fact global temperatures appear to be slightly declining.

Why don't we wait and see if any of these things come to be before emptying funds into the bottomless pit of foreign aid.

"Climate change is arguably the gravest threat ever faced by humanity."

At least the author is honest enough to say arguably. When the Bureau can get it right 2 days in a row you might be able to mount some case for some of these ridulous catatrophic predictions. We would be a lot better pouring money into feeding the poor than arguing about this fantasy.

There is, arguably, a greater threat: "The most successful supporters of tyranny are without doubt those general declaimers who attribute the distresses of the poor, and almost all the evils to which society is subject, to human institutions and the iniquity of governments." ~ Thomas Malthus

To these distresses we can apparently now add rising sea levels, though they are at about their lowest level in geological history, enabling Bangladesh's very existence - all that jute thanks to climate change. Should it continue to change, the response is, as always, simple: Blame America.

I don't reckon the poor of the world, on a dollar a day, are as concerned about climate change as those in the West suffering from Clive Hamilton's debilitating spiritual illness, Affluenza.

Thanks PJ.

African nations are going to need all the help they can get if the climate change fanatics get their way.

EU campaigns to buy locally produced food and travel to local destinations particularly hit out against African products.

Naturally they want African Nations to adopt expensive and experimental power sources instead of developing their oil and coal reserves.

As Kenyan economist James Shikwati says "I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry....."

He describes restricting the world's poorest people to alternative energy sources as "the most morally repugnant aspect of the Global Warming campaign."

The rise in temperature of the globe in the last 106 years aggregates .6 of a degree.

All the concern of the alarmists arises from what might happen in the future. Climate always has changed and always will. We are none the worse for it, and in fact would be in serious difficulty if climate ceased to change.

It may or may not have something to do with greenhouse gases. The very small contribution by human activity to a minor greenhouse gas, CO2 has negligible impact, if it has any impact at all.

The desperate search by Oxfam for victims, to justify its existence and its imposition on the developed world is pathetic.

If this is the best it can produce, it should disband, and let its constituents find something useful to do. Disbanding of pernicious organizations like the UN would be a laudable aim.

With the scientific information available to the IPCC committee of the UN, it is in a position to disclose that

1 There has been no warming of the globe since 1998.

2 It is highly unlikely that greenhouse gases cause global warming.

3 CO2 has a negligible effect, if any, on global warming.

Yet it persists in prevarication, and misleading statements, in its summary, which is not prepared by scientists, but by spin merchants from 150 countries, most of which have the sole aim of advancing their own country’s interests to the detriment of the developed world, by attempting to advance the myth of global warming.

Amazes me how some folk are happy to refute the findings of the IPCC - with is almost unanimous backing by world climate scientists - and then invent their own science to debunk it.

As I walk the streets it is hard to find anybody who has not become convinced that human activity is causing climate change. In the past year many reluctant diehards have come across the line.

The few flat-earthers left seem to have found company on this site.

Well, we live in a democracy, so good luck to you, but the price for being wrong has a very high moral price.

Are you prepared to wear that if you are proved wrong? We are talking about the fate of millions of fellow human beings.

Give yourself 15 years, then if you are wrong be prepared to make big amends - because just saying sorry will not be enough if the author is indeed correct

gecko,

"Are you prepared to wear that if you are proved wrong?"

Yes. Are you prepared to do the same when, like your original 'flat earthers' you are proved wrong?

Or do you still believe that the world is flat?

"Well, we live in a democracy, so good luck to you"
Thankfully we do indeed live in a democracy. This should ensure that Inconvenient sheep don't push us down the road of environmental martyrdom.

"As I walk the streets..."
So you're admitting to being a street walker, I knew it!

"Are you prepared to wear that if you are proved wrong?"
Yep...me too.

I am able to assist you gecko, as to why people are so misled on the mythical spectre of global warming, by quoting from evidence given to the United States Senate, by an eminent Australian scientist, Bob Carter:

“Given the many uncertainties and inadequacies in our understanding of climate science, and the lack of empirical evidence for human causation, how has it come about that public opinion in western nations is convinced that dangerous human-caused warming is occurring? The answer is that the public have been conditioned by the relentless repetition of alarmist climate messages through the media.”

The full document is well worth reading and is at:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/BobCarterUSSenate2006-2.pdf

If you read my post, I point out that the IPCC Summary is not the product of the scientists who do the research, but of politicians. It does not take much research to confirm this, but you obviously have not done it.

The mendacity of the UN was highlighted in a case where the Judge looked at the IPCC Summary and concluded that part of it was demonstrably untruthful and misleading:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QLRT/2007/33.html

The UN publishes the Summary, and delays publication of the Report until it has ensured that the Report agrees with the Summary. This is the precise opposite of approved scientific method.

Countries and businesses across the world are making strategic plans, and adopting progressive policies, to adapt to Climate Change and reduce GHG emissions.

This article by Andrew Hewitt of Oxfam has brought out of the woodwork again the intransigents in an attempt not to address the article itself, but to sabotage and destabilize climate science, the people, countries and institutions that see climate change as a real threat to the world.

These intransigents could engage in a constructive way – they don’t. They have a negative and unhelpful philosophy based on false premises leading to invalid arguments.

They have the audacity to accuse the experts (when they don't like the message) of the very thing they themselves are guilty of; they distort the truth, misrepresent the facts and quote out of context - to use Nick’s term, the ‘mendacity’ and negativity of these intransigents is extraordinary.

Bob Carter is eminent Australian scientist as Nick says, he is also recognised as a supporter of the policies and strategies of the Lavoisier Group; an extreme right-wing think tank that seeks to undermine not only the science of climate change, but also any political, social or economic action that may adversely impact their quest for power, control – to maintain the status quo.

It would help discussion if people at least understood the UNFCCC or IPCC process, or indeed the process of the UNCSD.

I would say to Nick, “it does not take much research to confirm this” … but you obviously have not done it adequately, or you have not understood it, or you are distorting it for your own agenda.

Some people, countries, businesses and institutions want to solve problems in a constructive way. It is frustrating to progress as a society when intransigents as exposed here stifle this process?

1.Climate change is said to peak around 2100 (IPCC models) yet the 8 billion ASPiring humans of 2025 will kill each other Rwanda style in order to be the 2 billion survivors that the planet's remaining oil and sundry energy supplies can support in elegant lifestyles. Perhaps this is why Survivor reality shows on TV are so popular. The interset is very likely genetically inherent, despite the horror generated by SUCH SELFISH BEHAVIOUR.

2. Climate change and poverty whilst being morally and viscerally disturbing, are thus long term irrelevant. That is a side of human evolution we shun unless it is put in an entertaining televised format where we are just observers. It is a direct response of any biological population to essential resource shortages. It even has mathematical equations that describe numericaly, how it will occur and over what time-span. The tragedies of Rwanda and Darfur even give us some hints as to the grissly mechanics of how it will happen.

3. World poverty has decreased dramatically over the last decade but due to greater media coverage it always appears to be getting worse. I suspect media predilections will always make this so.

4. Climate change is by weight and toxicity of causal pollutants, emitted by humans as solid and liquid wastes, not gases. Human supporting industries in leachates from waste dumps and in huge indellible wastewater plumes spewing out of large coastal cities and rivers across the planet ensure that ocean surfaces take the brunt of these wastes. The Following SHA (sea height anomaly) map of the US shows intense patterns of blue and yellow SHA anomalies that mostly fan out from large populated areas and specific cities : http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1183476812.gif

This is the same for large cities all over the globe and is essential proof that human wastewater emissions are causing vast oceanic distrubances that trap and sustain heat levels that were hitherto impossible. Thus the SHA maps are the ultimate proof that global warming is NOT CO2 determined but that CO2 levels are being bumped up by the inability of polluted oceans to absorb and process it.

Continued ..

5. Because Climate change etiology is in wastewater RATES of emission and proportional to human migrations to coastal areas, the 2025 population crunch will stop climate change within months of a lowering of human numbers. Climate change will cease immediately once there are too few humans to create the large sacle SHA distr\urbanvce patterning we are seeing in the SHA maps. A more climate will result for those humans (inhumans?) remaining.

Conclusion: None of this means we should give up on reducing climate change and on aborting all levels of poverty across the plant\et while we have the fuels to achieve it.

However we MUST understand the real and IMMINENT threat of the overpopulation/energy crunch (Human Dieoff) and give first priority to education and research and infrastruture(yes, short term PBR nuclar) funding to solving that problem.

We cannot afford to let our attentions get lost in futile Costelloean economic growth mantras when the forced end of that growth zone is about to end. That's pure insanity. Economic growth alone will not save us. Only education, viable baseload energy alternatives (geothermal) and a lowering of immigration pressure on resources, infrastructure and housing prices.

Larger populations and inherent frenetic competition will cause multi-level gridlock and make that totally impossible, thus hastening our end.

Australia has the technology and the resources to solve Dieoff, climate change and reach out in real assistance to poorer nations through safe PBR nuclear power and one-child family planning advice. There are ways of funding our economy to do this without the damaging gridlock and energy wastage effects of further immigration to Australia.

Thanks gecko for at least giving me 15 years before I'm brought before your Climate Thought Crimes Court. That's more generous than some. The IPCC expected temps would rise 0.3 degrees per decade. It's now nearly ten years since 1998 and no rise. But I certainly wouldn't demand they admit they're wrong. Thankfully, however, they've brought out another report, adjusted the projections, retrospectively altered the record to fit the models, claimed the science is getting better, and delayed my sentence a little longer. I'll try to enjoy my next 15 years.

I understand the process of the UN, davsab. Here is what one scientist, Chris Landsea said when he withdrew from the IPCC Assessment Report No.4:

“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound”

He sets out his reasons in detail in an open letter at:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

You respond with smear and innuendo, you do not address the facts. Bob Carter is simply concerned that people know the truth, which is clearly the opposite to what is in the IPCC Summary.

I am sure you read the judgement to which I referred in my post.

What did you make of the comment by the Judge that the Summary states that it is “very likely that human-induced GHGs are causing global warming, and that most of the observed increases in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century are very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human-caused) GHG concentrations.

However, a close examination of the global mean temperature chart (Fig SPM-3), which was said to support that view, reveals that the last 106 years had 3 periods of cooling (1900-1910, 1944-1976, 1998-2006) and 2 periods of warming (1910-1944, 1976-1998) and that temperatures rose only 0.5°C from 1900 to 2006”?

There has been no warming since 1998, but there has been a slight cooling. The Judge also commented that this was not dealt with in the Summary. The non scientists who prepared the Summary could not even read the graph which they attached. They were unaware that it disproved their assertions

The IPCC Summary is a political document which misrepresents the science, the Report of which is still not published, although its purported Summary was published back in February this year.

KAEP. Your wild assertions demonstrate you to be suitable as a spin merchant for the UN. I rate your scare mongering every bit as ridiculous as the global warming propositions.

In terms of scientific process, it is one where hypotheses are formed and revised in light of new information. ‘Climate Change’ science is complex and is certainly not perfect, but much has been learned and it is definitely getting better all the time.

Unfortunately, some scientists (and a great deal of non-scientists as demonstrated here on OLO) are culpable of selective use of available information – distortion of facts, misinformation, and misrepresentation – in essence, propagandising.

In terms of the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) process, see

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=7A69E4EE-E7F2-99DF-303CDE51F7DD6BBA

and

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/01/news/warm.php?page=1

Government representatives from all participating nations take the draft summary (as written by the lead authors of the individual chapters) and discuss whether the text truly reflects the underlying science in the main report.

It is important to note that what the lead authors originally draft is not easily understood by politicians (of whatever persuasion) or people of different cultures and backgrounds. So the governments (for whom the report is being written) are perfectly entitled to insist that the language be modified so that the conclusions are correctly understood by them and the scientists.

It is very important to understand that the scientists must agree that the final SPM conforms to the underlying science in the technical chapters – the science content is not changed. The advantage of this process is that everyone involved is absolutely clear what is meant by each sentence.

The SPM process also serves a very useful political purpose. Specifically, it allows all the governments involved to feel as though they 'own' part of the report. This makes it very difficult to later turn around and dismiss it on the basis that it was all written by someone else.

There are plenty of safeguards (not least the scientists themselves) to ensure that the SPM is not slanted in any one preferred direction, as some on OLO suggest.

Some people don’t like the outcome of the SPM – but the science is the science, and contrarians/deniers and sceptics spit chips and take their ball home.

Nick, it's about philosophy and political ideology - get it?

Continued

All scientists are concerned that people know the truth. Thousands of scientific papers are published – it is a huge task for the IPCC to independently assess and collate this peer reviewed literature.

Some people get their knickers in a knot about the IPCC but what they should really be doing (if they were genuine, not ignorant or recalcitrant) is looking at or researching the:

1. Technical summary of the AR4
2. AR4 technical chapters themselves
3. Scientific papers themselves (referenced in the AR4)

Some on OLO clearly have not done this; they smear the IPCC process and the world’s governments for being complicit in some audacious conspiracy by the world’s experts in their specialised fields.

It is they who besmirch by innuendo the role of a scientist. It is they who imply the scientists are behaving in a way that is the complete antithesis of what scientists are, what they do.

It is they who criticise the science without really understanding the science.

1998 was the warmest year on record. However, you don't have to be a statistician to understand that a simple trend plotted with a record warm year as the start date will show a cooling trend... until the next record year - see link to NOAA.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm

Nick, since you raised the subject, please entertain us with your musings on these graphs:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Are you telling us that GW stopped in 1998? Or was it 1973, or 1983, or 1990?

What do I make of the Xtrata case?

The judiciary can not, must not, set government policy … can you imagine the pickle the presiding member (judge) would be in if he decided otherwise?

However, why did Nick choose not to tell us that the decision has been appealed and is set aside for hearing in August? I link the appellant’s outline of argument.

http://www.envlaw.com.au/newlands19.pdf

Personally, I think the appeal will fail – but as a test case, why not?

BTW Nick, the AR4 report is here for your perusal, been there for some time if you had cared to look at the IPCC site

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

davsab.As you point out 1998 is a hotter year than any since that time. Global warming has ceased, at least for 9 years.

I simply drew your attention to the fact that a graph produced by the IPCC shows no warming since 1998, and various periods of warming and cooling over the last 100 years, with an aggregate warming in that period of one half of one degree.

The graph is in the Summary and is easily checked, as is the misleading statement in the Summary, quoted in my post. No appeal will alter that, or the fact that the evidence given by the expert greenie against Xstrata, was found by the Judge to be exaggerated, which is a euphemism for false.

Your rationalisation of the disregard of scientific method to accommodate politicians is unconvincing. If it is not science, as the Summary clearly is not, then it should not be misrepresented by the UN as science. Call it what it is: a composition to satisfy anti western politicians.

Thanks for the link to IPCC. I cannot believe that this is their scientific report, directing the reader back to the Summary as the overview. I would have thought they would avoid a flawed document like their Summary, but perhaps it has been amended.

I look forward to some amusing reading.

All of the alarmist fuss, unless it is based on a warming of .5 of a degree in 100 years, depends on predictions. The leading predictor is the IPCC, and I do not think I am the first to point out that it has not been right yet.

You say: “There are plenty of safeguards (not least the scientists themselves) to ensure that the SPM is not slanted in any one preferred direction”

I do not know what these alleged “safeguards” are, but I have given you plenty of evidence that they have failed, particularly in the case of the scientists. Did you even look at what Chris Landsea said before making a statement like that. Here is the link:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

Attention all REAL scientists, and all unbiased observers of the natural and economic rationalist unnatural world:

The trick is not to become somebody else. You become somebody else when you're just regurgitally quoting other scientists in front of a camera or on a public forum. There are some people who carry it all the time. That, to me, is NOT science.

For example, in climate science, what you've gotta do is observe and find out what the biosphere is really doing and put it into your mind. This is SCIENCE.

You must go out and research what the hell is really going on at a raw data level (Experimenting with Ricci flow bluish-green ocean surface 'gutters' on global and regional SHA maps for example).

Not doing so is more and more often, in an unjust and shoehorned global economy environment, just being a witless spokesperson for somebody else's profiteering agenda. That is crazy! It can never be science for it can never form the basis of a TRUTH you can build upon.

And very soon the IPCC and its 50-100 year predictions will find this out to their chagrin. Once petrol hits $5 a litre, anything but climate predictions for the next 15 to 20 years are going to look pretty damn silly.

continued ..

As for world poverty:

the second law of thermodynamics predicts that the most efficient way to give aid is not money or food but ENERGY. From energy comes ORDER. Money just breeds greed and social division. Australia's best plan to alleviate global poverty and for its own economic security, is to build UF6 centrifuge farms NOW and manufacture Nuclear PEBBLE fuel to power medium to small REACTORS. The kind of reactors that power ships, or medium to small cities. Australian cities of over 50,000 people, Antarctic bases and certain navy ships should all aim to have such reactors within 5-10 years. Larger installations are too unsafe, inefficient and expensive to build and maintain

We can export or use these REACTORS locally. We should give REACTORS as aid to selected cities in poorer nations and supply PBR fuel only if they maintain a flawless one child per family policy. That is how to put an end to world poverty and terrorism! People free to live their lives without poverty and senseless competition will not make enemies.

As for nuclear security:

* You cannot use PBR fuel in breeder reactors nor can you use it to make bombs. You could crush the pebbles and make a dirty bomb but it would be just as effective to use an old car battery, so why bother.

*PBR reactors automatically shut down when they reach critical temperatures and thus nuclear accidents are absolutely impossible.

* Long term wastes, not from safe enclosed PBR pebbles but from tailings and processing, could kill or injure in the thousands WORST CASE. The most likely scenario is that technology will make this waste future safe. However this assessment must be weighed up against the 6 billion folks likely to be exterminated if we reach peakoil (~2025) without a reliable stop-gap, base-load and green energy alternative. Ultimately, unless we develop our own energy generating space program, virtually unlimited GEOTHERMAL power will make Nuclear power obsolete within several decades as laser drilling technology matures.

KAEP et al

So, we are back on topic after an interlude of dead head space, my apologies for trying to rationalise with the irrational … I know, a contradiction in terms!

The REAL problem the world is facing is not about climate change science (the science is there for all to see, whether you believe it or not).

Rather, the world’s REAL problems are more about philosophical or political ideology, primarily driven by the unsustainable consumerism of the so called developed countries, apparently at all costs.

It seems that unless we as a species converge to one common goal, humanity and many other species are stuffed … simple as.

Ok, the United Nations has problems and its Charter needs to be modified, but at the moment that is all we have got.

At the very basic level, should not we (at the grassroots level) be “encouraging” our political leaders to address the problems raised not only by Oxfam, but by the United Nations itself?

We as a species must converge to one common goal? Whose goal davsab? Yours? Mine? My housemates have never even converged on a common goal on housework. Other societies have converged on someone's idea of a collectivist common goal. Now there's a lesson in REAL problems. Your "so called" developed countries don't look so bad by comparison. And if their wealth is so ill-gotten, how is it morally defensible for unelected NGOs to demand a cut of the loot?

Richard,

Whose goal you ask, mine, yours? This is exactly my point and we may not differ as much as you think. In fact, you allude to the REAL problem as well.

I don’t want to trivialise the issue by comparing it to your housemate’s chores, but I understand where you are coming from.

The United Nations is not a very effective institution because its policies and actions are mainly determined by the interests of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, UK, France, Russia and China - each possess the power of veto, which means that decisions taken by the UN in general can be blocked by any one of the ‘big boys’. I’m sure you know this.

Any sphere of influence enjoyed by the ‘big boys’ is therefore seemingly protected; it happened with the war on the “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, it is happening again with the war on the “Weather of Mass Destruction”.

The ‘big boys’ will not tolerate their fundamental interests being challenged. When rival states follow divergent paths, the UN is paralysed.

This is why I say to really solve the world’s problems; we must converge to common goals – and this is the difficulty as you quite rightly point out.

The US, UK and France are ‘developed’, China and Russia want what we have and are adopting policies and strategies to achieve that, they are ‘developing’.

Problem is, the way we have achieved this development (economic growth if you like) is by putting enormous pressure on the environment (how we use and manage non-renewable resources for example). The developed nations have also put extreme pressure on the people and countries that are not as ‘developed’.

Countries in the ‘developed world’ pontificate on ‘human rights’, but they continue to pursue a 'neo-conservative' agenda - privatisation, 'free trade', labour market deregulation, etc - that results in destabilising and sucking wealth out of the poorest countries while at the same time swelling the assets of the big multi-nationals and their mates.

Continued

(alas, we all have a life :-), to continue,

The UN Charter proclaims the intention of 192 member states to strive for friendly relations between nations, maintenance of world peace, the elimination of poverty, disease and illiteracy and the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. This is all nice, warm and fuzzy

The fact remains, when one of the ‘big boys’ feel their sphere of influence (power and control) is threatened, all the warm and comfy feelie-feelies fly out the door – look at Iraq.

This is also happening now with the “debate” on ‘Climate Change,’ as shown by the US (Bush) denials and until recently, the Oz response.

Whether you believe it or not, countries, businesses and individuals around the world see misuse of energy resources as a threat to the globe’s border – the troposphere. Even our PM appears to be converging now.

Climate Change was put on the UN’s Security Council’s agenda because this issue, if not dealt with right, will threaten the national security of member states, whatever your belief.

So, addressing the issues of climate change seems to me like a very good reason for the world’s people to converge (regardless of their ideology or political views, country or religion) and to work together for the common good – rather than fight each other, literally and metaphorically.

In other words, our common goal should be about developing humanity in a more environmentally sustainable way. We have a limited amount of time and resources – and technology is getting better. Some groups don’t want that, because it takes away their power – that is just plain egocentric.

I get frustrated at the attempts of non-experts on the one hand, and people who just can’t see the ‘big picture’ on the other, to demonise the IPCC, who after all are just passing on the message to the people that could, if they wish, do something about climate change.

Richard, if Oxfam (or other NGO’s, businesses, countries or people) can help facilitate convergence, then why not?

I commend my thoughts to cyberspace.

Dave

I get frustrated at the attempts of non-experts on the one hand, and people who just can’t see the ‘big picture’ on the other, to idolise the IPCC, who after all are failing to pass on the correct messages about solving climate change:

The REAL global problems are poisoning of ocean ecosystems, the global-energy-crisis, poverty and
2025-OVERPOPULATION-DIEOFF whose solutions are:

1.adopting a personal one child per family policy to demonstrate resolve to solve OVERPOPULATION and DIEOFF, the only serious threats TRULY facing humankind.

2.being responsible for your OWN C.R.A.P. Getting bums off toilet seats & Lobbying governments to recycle C.R.A.P. which kills important oceanic ecosysytems that REGULATE climate change via regulation of CO2 levels, global temperatures and oceanic entropy currents(storms and droughts).

3.Lobbying governments to adopt laser drilling research programs for limitless clean GEOTHERMAL power, the only possible sustainable energy future on this planet, thus solving the '2025 ENERGY crisis' before it drags our civilisation back to the stone age.

4.Lobbying governments to put an end to oil company monopolisation of laser drilling technologies. Drilling technologies that currently sequester $ENERGY profits across the globe into just a handful of questionable company coffers.

5.Telling Gore, Geldoff, Clinton and Bono that its NOT good enough to stop us, or the factories that support our lifestyles, from BREATHING. That is what they are actually saying. Telling them to forget current food aid and 'empower' the poor with free low entropy, life supporting GEOTHERMAL power facilities in return for one child per family planning policies. If they don't, before long, their $100 billion food aid will become a $100 trillion dollar arms budget to defend their palatial lifestyles from the very people they are trying to help.

SUMMARY: The future of this planet is all about GEOTHERMAL energy and POPULATION stability. We all want a future for our grandchildren and also a beyond 2025 future for ourselves. Thus it is up to every one of us to THINK for ourselves and see through the Greed and the Shortightedness within ourselves and in our leaders, party entrepreneurs and the IPCC.

Hardly know where to begin, davsab. I disagree with many of your basic assumptions - that 'neoconservatism' is anathema to human rights, that free trade destabilises and sucks the wealth from poor countries... I'm surprised that you see the IPCC as one arm of the UN that is somehow beyond reproach. I also find it ironic that climate sceptics are accused of chasing power and control, and of wanting to preserve the status quo, when it is environmentalists who want to 'manage' the climate, and keep it in some fantastical optimum state. And then we must all converge to your ideas, regardless of our views and beliefs! Scary. No wonder PJ O'Rourke referred, a decade ago, to Al Gore's totalitarian inclinations. Imagine the power of controlling the climate - I can see the Jim Carrey film now.

And why is it big multi-nationals who are so hell bent on the status quo? A criticism usually levelled at them is that they are so big, that they can adapt fast, develop new products and markets, that capital moves around like Bram Stoker's Dracula, sucking people dry and moving on. What do they care? Some of those multi-nationals happen to extract the oil that some of my more alarmist friends put in their 4WDs (true). And some of them "plan to invest tens of billions of dollars in sub-Saharan Africa (far in excess of "aid" inflows to the regions)...Within 10 years the US will import more oil from Africa than from the entire Middle East" (C. Thompson, New Statesman) Here's perhaps the greatest opportunity to REALly tackle African poverty, and climate alarmists would deny them because the global average temp is half a degree warmer than a hundred years ago? Talk about preserving the status quo!

Personally, I'd like to see change - that is, an end to poverty in Africa and an end to Oxfam ads. Worldwide numbers of people at extreme levels of poverty have dropped from 800 million to 300 million in recent years, mainly because previously poor countries have adopted the ideas from which you seem to diverge

From ninemsn: "Gore made a live video appearance from Washington to open the first show on the other side of the world in Sydney. He took the technology a step further a few hours later, appearing on stage in Tokyo as a hologram.

"Global warming is the greatest challenge facing our planet, and the gravest we've ever faced," said Gore, who in his holographic appearance wore the only suit in sight."

Need I say more?

Thanks for engaging Richard, although discussions on OLO suffer from a short lifespan. I have no doubt events will overtake our dialogue, but as long as it lasts, thanks for your thoughts.

My argument centres on the inadequacy of the UN (the General Assembly and the Security Council to be specific) to address global problems (whatever they be) because of the divergent ideological and philosophical views of the major players. This, using your term, is anathema to the UN’s Charter itself.

I do think neo-conservatism (creating a new world order) contributes to our problems, but I have to emphasise that the far left have not made resolution any easier. This is why I think it is essential to converge to a central position.

I do not think the IPCC is beyond reproach, it does have its flaws and their processes and procedures do undergo audit and review – but it is in and of itself the best mechanism we have to assess the state of climate change science in the world.

Richard, I think GW alarmists should pull their head in, it does nothing for their cause to preach doom and gloom; in fact it probably drives people away from reasoned analysis. On the other hand, sceptics/deniers (not in the scientific sense of the word) do just as much damage to the debate. No wonder people get angry, confused and put their head in the sand.

Genuine environmentalists want to ‘develop’ in an environmentally sustainable way (they don’t as you say want to ‘manage’ the climate) and we don’t want to live in the dark ages as some would have you believe.

You misunderstand my views of convergence. It is not my ideas that you must converge to, it is the ideas expressed by all member states (albeit with divergent ideologies) of the UN in its Charter that must converge – otherwise we will always have wars, famine, unsustainable development, poverty, etc without any hope of making it better. Do you agree?

continued

Continued

We have not the natural resources to sustain the excessive consumerist driven societies of the developed world, let alone the developing societies, into the future. You can be an environmentalist no matter what political party you’re aligned to – and some greenies would not know what true environmentalism is.

Their will be peak oil, coal, gas – Do you agree that humanity must manage its energy resources in a more environmentally and economically sustainable way?

Hence, whether you believe in climate change or not, is it not better to converge to a more sustainable way of living – I am sorry you misunderstood my point again about convergence.

As far as Al Gore goes, he would be the last person I (as an environmentalist) would have picked to champion the issues of GW – although he has got a message out there. He is a 'failed' politician, immediately putting half the US off-side? Arnold the terminator Republican is doing a much better job, in real terms, to address GW.

Countries (even Bush’s), major businesses (even Exxon), and individuals (even Howard) worldwide want to address the problems of GW. So why not, it would have a more favourable outcome than maintaining business as usual or the status quo?

KAEP

In the 'real' world I am heavily involved in inter/national water resources and wastewater management.

It is recognised that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from 280 to 380 ppm since industrialisation and fossil fuel burning has contributed to this significantly - founded on carbon isotope analysis.

It is also recognised that the oceans and terrestrial biosphere can not absorb GHG-e at the rate humanity is pumping them out. I am also aware that bad land management practices are contributing to our coastal water problems, but ...

Your thoughts do raise some interesting points; however, the oceans are a huge sink of CO2-e (albeit rising ocean temps and acidity make it increasingly more difficult to absorb CO2).

Seriously, please point us to more research on your ideas – I have asked elsewhere.

The following quote from Bob Carter - eminent scientist - is a fine example of how even science is misrepresented by scientists and those with an agenda - in this case that of the Lavoisier right wing think tank.

“Given the many uncertainties and inadequacies in our understanding of climate science, and the lack of empirical evidence for human causation, how has it come about that public opinion in western nations is convinced that dangerous human-caused warming is occurring? The answer is that the public have been conditioned by the relentless repetition of alarmist climate messages through the media.”

There are many many more eminent scientists who agree there is 90% certainty about human causation and as for being conditioned into thinking there are alarmist climate messages re dangerous change - I am sure the Tuvaluans who are swamped by sea reckon that things are dangerous. Oxfam is correct in pointing out the dangers to the world's poorest. Its unfortunate that many western commentators and scientists cannot see things from a majority world perspective or recognise and acknowledge their own agendas. Science is never completely neutral or decoupled from the socio-economic nexus. Recall the great Gas and Oil Swindle about 15 years ago where an investigation showed how the fossil fuel lobby had co-opted some senior scientists who turned out to be in the pay of American Gas and Fuel (and others who were actually just TV weather presenters) for a concerted effort against renewable energy. That campaign was incredibly successful - delaying global action until now - and yet there are still those who deny the significant body of science across dozens of scientific disciplines that points to the need for action now - by those who have been and are now the biggest emitters of carbon and other GHG's.
Whether or not humans are the cause (the supposed lack of 'empirical' evidence) may well be irrelevant when it IS clear that carbon is the problem and that human endeavour and behaviour change must be the solution. No other species can do it

"There are many many more eminent scientists who agree there is 90% certainty about human causation"
Care to show me where in IPCC reports this 90% confidence interval was calculated? You won't, because you can't, as this is a "feeling" not a statistical estimate.

"I am sure the Tuvaluans who are swamped by sea reckon that things are dangerous"
Maybe you should actually look at the data before making wild assertions like this.

http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDO60033/IDO60033.2004.pdf

This is what the "official" Tuvalu sea level measurers (aka BOM) say
"In the early years, the trend appeared to indicate an enormous rate of sea level rise. Later, due to the 1997/1998 El Niño when sea level fell 35 cm below average, the trend actually went negative, and remained so for the next three years. Over most of the past four years, the sea level appears to have been falling. Only in August 2001 did the trend return to positive values. It is still far too early to deduce a long-term trend (or even whether it will be positive or negative) from this data."

Doesn't look that dangerous...

"Whether or not humans are the cause (the supposed lack of 'empirical' evidence) may well be irrelevant when it IS clear that carbon is the problem"
Ummm no it wouldn't irrelevant at all. If humans are NOT the cause then carbon is NOT a problem. Seems intuitive.

Angela, the agenda of the right wing think tank Lavoisier is to publish the truth about global warming, and science.

Your statement that there is 90% certainty that global warming is caused by human activity is untrue, and the reason you believe it is, as Bob Carter says, because of constant false statements in the media.

There is no certainty about what causes global warming, let alone whether it is caused by human activity. There is no certainty, at this moment, that there is any global warming. There certainly has been none since 1998, and the aggregate warming over the last 106 years is one half of one degree. There have been periods of warming, as well as periods of cooling over that time.

Over the last 9 years there has been no warming, but there has been slight cooling, so we may have entered a period of global cooling, which explains the constant efforts of the alarmists to talk about climate change, instead of global warming.

Al Gore, speaking of unqualified people with an agenda, recently gave his global warming talk in Johannesburg, during the first snow experienced there in 26 years.
He also showed the lack of judgement to talk about evacuation of global warming refugees from Tuvalu to New Zealand, shortly before his tour took him to New Zealand, where they were well aware that there had been no such evacuation. Yet this proven confidence man has gained thousands of supporters for his false cause, and made millions of dollars in the process

It is highly likely that carbon has beneficial effects. The greening of the Sahara is one example of this. There is no “significant body of science across dozens of scientific disciplines that points to the need for action now” as stated by you.

There are persistent hard core activists, such as Al Gore, comparatively few in number, who work constantly to mislead people into believing nonsense, and to make themselves rich by doing so.

Angela, please excuse my intervention.

These graphs may help put things in perspective – you may see the trend – although some obviously don’t.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Based on some people’s logic, Global Warming should have stopped in 1973, then 1983, then 1990 and finally in 1998.

It seems some people’s definition of GW is record warm years one after each other.

Some people are not familiar with trend analysis, let alone simple statistics – it would be sensible for these people to leave their interpretations well alone.

1998 was the warmest year on record (just). However, you don't have to be a statistician to understand that a simple trend plotted with a record warm year at the start date (Nick chooses 1998) will show a cooling trend ... until the next record year, just pipped 2006.

Take a look at this for some retrospect:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm

2006 and 1998 were the warmest two years in the instrumental global surface air temperature record since 1850. Eleven of the last 12 years (1995 to 2006) – the exception being 1996 – rank among the 12 warmest years on record since 1850.

The rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. Three different global estimates all show consistent warming trends.

This data can be found in the AR4 technical papers here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

While you’re there, check out the FAQ.

Some people disingenuously misrepresent, distort or selectively edit the science as we have seen, both here and in the media.

The agenda of the right-wing think tank, “The Lavoisier Group”, is to create a new world order under the guise of neo-conservatism, to maintain the power and control of wealth, and the minds of the masses – doing a great job with Nick it appears.

Some people/groups want 100% certainty before they act – this is typical behaviour of people in denial or that suffer some form of paranoia. Risk assessors would be out of a job and nothing would ever get done if this blinkered mindset was to prevail.

Aims of the Lavoisier Group:

• to promote vigorous debate within Australia on greenhouse science and greenhouse policy;
• to ensure that the full extent of the economic consequences, for Australia, of the regime of carbon withdrawal prescribed by the yet-to-be-ratified Kyoto Protocol, are fully understood by the Australian community;
• to explore the implications which treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol have for Australia's sovereignty, and for the GATT/WTO rules which protect Australia (and other WTO members) from the use of trade sanctions as an instrument of extraterritorial power.

The source of the above is the Lavoisier website:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/

What is the source of your misinformation davsab? I did not see any reference in your post.

The reference you gave us in regard to the temperature in 2006, says hottest in the US (not globally) since 1998 and goes on to say “slightly cooler than 1998”. This demolishes your proposition.

Still no warming since 1998. Total warming in 106 years is one half of one degree.

You seem to have difficulty reporting what you read, correctly davsab. Try for less volume, and more quality.

Cavalry to the rescue – nice plug Leo.

My source will plead ignorance, deny all knowledge and as a last resort, claim they can not remember.

Their blasé excuse has had great success in a number of enquiries of late, so much so that people are beginning to see the truth.

So you like cherries Leo, have a look at the bottom graph, 3rd from the top – the one that says “Global” (really, either hemisphere is problematic wouldn’t you say?)

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

It is obviously beyond the scope of your understanding (or these word limits) to do a dissertation on “temperature anomalies” and your cohort’s incoherence of temperature change or its rate of change – so, to be brief – go back to school.

Better still, this is a paper from our own Bureau of Meteorology, I would like to see your cavalry’s response.

http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm

Should be quite topical.

Very intrigue word-“adaptation” and not much at all of practically considering the issue because a natural process, which is a climate change, is not caused with and cannot be diverted by the engineering means possible.

Although redistributing the funds from well-profiting on third world's resources the UK (a major beneficary), Japan and some other “first class” countries into coffins of the third world “developing” princelings might somehow benefit loudly lobbying NGOs, a realistic vision of adapting the climate change deals with a revolutionary deployment of effective energy-producing technologies and global alteration the ways and consuming processes energy to be used for AT a GLOBAL SCALE.

As usual for post-WWII London mentoring, nothing new had been provided by Oxfam GB surely.