(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.