Despite the increase in carbon dioxide since 1998 annual average temperatures have still not surpassed those of that year. It looks like carbon dioxide has very little to do with warming or at least that other climate forces are far stronger. This scotches the idea that Kyoto is going to achieve anything, don't you think?

The article also says "The World Health Association indicated that more than 160,000 people died worldwide last year as a result of climate change. They died in heat waves, from an increase in storms, infectious diseases and malnutrition from destruction of crops."

What rubbish!

Most of those deaths were attributed to the European heatwave of 2003, a heatwave caused by a stationary pressure cell and which caused abnormally cold weather in Russia. The claim that the heatwave was more intense due to global warming comes from a computer model which, by its nature is loaded with assumptions.

Meteorologists tell me that the intensity of storms depends on the difference between tropical and polar temperatures. Currently Arctic temperatures are increasing therefore the difference is decreasing, as is the intensity of events. Statististics from Scandinavia and elsewhere show no increase whatsoever in extreme weather.

Maybe people did suffer from malnutrition from the destruction of crops but can you or the WHO show that this was due to global warming and not some natural event like El Nino conditions?

Infectious diseases caused by global warming? People caught malaria in Italy during winter in 1942! Infectious diseases are primarily related to population density and sanitation, not slight warming.

What's Kyoto going to cost? A few days ago a report (at http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=5231682&subject=general&action=article ) said that Japan can expect to spend 14 trillion yen over the next 7 years to meet its Kyoto commitments. If my maths is correct, that's equivalent to about $25 billion Australian per year.

No temperature increase from carbon dioxide (or anything else) in the last 6 years but Japan will have to spend $25 billion per year to stop carbon dioxide increasing because it causing warming.

Does that make any sense to anyone ??


cheers

Just a little more information and some refereneces

Climate change a health issue ?

Two studies by Paul Reiter (of the US National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, San Juan, Puerto Rico) conclude that climate and temperature are far less significant than other factors.

His reports are "Climate change and mosquitoe-borne disease" at http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/reiter-climate-change-mbd.pdf and "From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age" at http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/shakespeare.pdf.

And on the subject "Blair understands that the existing 0.7C rise in temperature has produced widespread global effects, with rise in sea level melting of ice caps, increase in drought and storm and loss of species. Yet we seem certain to have a rise of 2C sometime this century and perhaps in a few decades..."

(a) we are not "certain to have a rise of 2C". Mathematical models assume that carbon dioxide causes temperature increase but the last 6 years show that to be doubtful. Even the IPCC admits that the models are not good. Besides, according to ice core data the world was probably 2C higher around 100BC.

(b) ice cap melting? Where? - "Antarctic Ice Sheets are Growing" at http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-03-10/antartic.htm or do you mean Arctic, in which case see Inhofe (below)

(c) sea level rise? No - see refs in http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20050104Inhofe.pdf

(d) increase in drought and storms? - No - see above Inhofe paper

(e) loss of species ... New species are discovered every year but usually only the science journals report them. It's called evolution.


Do me a favour - look for the facts and data, not someone's alarmist opinion!

cheers