The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Climate change and the world's poor > Comments

Climate change and the world's poor : Comments

By Andrew Hewett, published 3/7/2007

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

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
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.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 1:39:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 1:42:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Richard Castles, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 1:44:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Nick Lanelaw, Wednesday, 4 July 2007 6:08:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by davsab, Thursday, 5 July 2007 4:32:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by davsab, Thursday, 5 July 2007 4:33:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy