backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 192 comment(s) - last by Strunf.. on Jun 6 at 4:35 PM


According to a new study, global warming is killing 315,000 people annually and creating $125B USD in damages. This impact is almost entirely shouldered by developing nations.   (Source: j2fi)

Meanwhile the 50 poorest nations only contribute 1 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. The report says this situation -- and the death toll -- will only get worse, if action is not taken.  (Source: Global Envision)
According to a new Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) report, global warming may be one of the deadliest threats to man yet

Many question whether man is causing global warming, whether it is really occurring, and exactly how bad it really is.  While the jury may be out on the first question, recent studies have indicated that the world is indeed warming, either due to natural or anthropogenic (human-induced) factors.  Many put the blame on greenhouse gases.

That debate aside, a recent study by the Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) sought to answer the third question, looking at the impact of global warming on mankind.  What it claims is shocking -- it blames global warming for 315,000 deaths a year since 2003.  The deaths are resulting from hunger, sickness and weather disasters attributed to climate changes.  Further, based on current predicted temperature rises, it expects this death toll to reach half a million yearly by 2030.

The study also found that climate change impacts the lives of 325 million people worldwide, and that by 2030 it will likely impact 10 percent of the world's population (670 million, based on current figures).  It also placed the financial losses due to global warming at $125B USD per year, and expects this figure to rise to $340B USD annually by 2030.

Kofi Annan, former U.N. secretary-general and GHF president states, "Climate change is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time, causing suffering to hundreds of millions of people worldwide.  The first hit and worst affected are the world's poorest groups, and yet they have done least to cause the problem."

The report also found that nine tenths of the human and economic losses from global warming are borne by developing nations.  Meanwhile, the 50 poorest countries only contribute 1 percent of emissions.  He says 500 million people, living in poverty worldwide, are particularly vulnerable, as they live in locations extremely vulnerable to droughts, floods, storms, sea-level rise and creeping deserts caused by climate changes.  Mr. Annan urges world leaders to adopt a binding and effective successor to the Kyoto Protocol at a planned December U.N. meeting in Copenhagen.

Mr. Annan states, "Copenhagen needs to be the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated.  The alternative is mass starvation, mass migration and mass sickness."

He says even the worst-case U.N. reports fall short of the true impact climate change may have.  With new evidence he cites pointing to faster than previously predicted warming, he says the time for inaction is past.  He says funds to combat climate change will have to rise from the current level of $400M USD annually to an estimated $32B USD annually.

Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam in Britain and a GHF board member, chimes in stating, "Funding from rich countries to help the poor and vulnerable adapt to climate change is not even 1 percent of what is needed.  This glaring injustice must be addressed at Copenhagen in December."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Amazing Outcome
By TomZ on 5/29/2009 1:14:42 PM , Rating: 5
I mean, who would have thought that a group like the Global Humanitarian Forum would have found any different results? It's kind of like asking the Pope whether he thinks God exists.

I haven't seen the report, so I can't criticize it's content, but needless to say, I'm pretty skeptical about the claims. It seems like a liberal plot to extract wealth from rich nations to fund development in poor nations, i.e., giveaways.




RE: Amazing Outcome
By randomposter on 5/29/2009 1:18:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I haven't seen the report, so I can't criticize it's content

... and yet you're perfectly comfortable dismissing it out-of-hand based on the fact the authoring agency had the word "humanitarian" in it's name?


RE: Amazing Outcome
By invidious on 5/29/2009 1:46:42 PM , Rating: 5
sounds like a good plan to me


RE: Amazing Outcome
By plowak on 5/29/2009 2:25:06 PM , Rating: 5
I'm a l w a y s suspicious of any organization that appends to its title a self aggrandizing or self elevating expression such as "humanitarian".

P G. Goodness
CEO of the "Best for Everybody and Everything Group".


RE: Amazing Outcome
By TomZ on 5/29/2009 2:35:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
CEO of the "Best for Everybody and Everything Group".
...while I personally own several large homes and jet around the globe...

"Do as I say, not as I do."


RE: Amazing Outcome
By quiksilvr on 5/30/2009 2:09:32 PM , Rating: 4
In other words, "I'm a hypocrite, listen to me!"


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mandrews on 5/29/2009 9:07:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I'm a l w a y s suspicious of any organization that appends to its title a self aggrandizing or self elevating expression such as "humanitarian".


Africa doesn't need the WHF telling them that global warming is killing them. They need someone to stop the local warlord from raping, stealing, plundering, and murdering.

This rings hollow rhetoric and hardly should be deemed "science". The UN estimates have proved badly skewed in the past. They based their comparisons on outdated figures and questionable correlations.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By sxr7171 on 5/30/2009 2:07:29 AM , Rating: 4
Seriously. There are bigger fish to fry in the world.

The Nobel Prize has lost all meaning and significance to me after Al Gore got it.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By nineball9 on 5/30/2009 2:23:55 AM , Rating: 2
All of them? There are 5 Nobel Prize categories. The Riksbank prize for Economics, given in memory of Nobel, is often considered the 6th category.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By sxr7171 on 5/30/2009 2:05:14 PM , Rating: 4
I know what you're saying, I guess I meant only the Peace Prize, but what a shame considering Mother Teresa was a recipient. The two are nowhere in the same league.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By bety on 6/1/2009 2:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. The Nobel prize has been completely devalued now. IF a hypocrital, attention-monger who makes a very popular "science" film riddled with errors is worthy of the prize then there is little more to say....


RE: Amazing Outcome
By NaSnake on 5/31/2009 11:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Africa doesn't need the WHF telling them that global warming is killing them. They need someone to stop the local warlord from raping, stealing, plundering, and murdering.


Agreed. +1


RE: Amazing Outcome
By seriousfun on 6/1/2009 1:43:04 PM , Rating: 4
"Africa doesn't need the WHF telling them that global warming is killing them. They need someone to stop the local warlord from raping, stealing, plundering, and murdering."

I'm sure that the study would somehow find that the warlords actions are caused man-made global warming. They would all be living in peace with natural global warming.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By PrinceGaz on 5/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing Outcome
By msomeoneelsez on 5/31/2009 11:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
I will assume that was sarcasm...

By the way, Im only posting because I hit a "rate this guy" link and I didnt want to... trying to clear it out :D I am not going to inflate it either way (and no, I didn't check which I pushed.)


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mindless1 on 5/29/2009 5:16:49 PM , Rating: 5
I am, because it hinges on the false assumption that these poor countries were otherwise a nirvana where nobody dies, and more importantly while the report states "emissions are still steadily increasing", it makes the big leap others do in concluding increasing emissions are causing global warming to the extent that it is to blame for the climate changes around which the entire report focuses and depends upon.

It's Darwinism. If there's no food where you are, you move where there is some. If food production is sporadic you stock up sufficiently then if you cannot produce enough to replenish that surplus, you move on to an area where you can produce more before that surplus is entirely exhausted.

That's what people have done throughout history, it takes little common sense to do it but these are the people without that sense.

Dare I also mention the nagging little detail of not having children if you live where there is scarcely enough food already, or you do as mentioned above and move to an area where there is more so the child can survive.

I blame the first world a little bit too, we are too ready to exploit people for profit. It may not always be direct exploitation but there is a global trickle-down effect. If there were less poverty in 2nd and 3rd worlds they could simply import more vital supplies.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By GlassHouse69 on 5/30/2009 10:49:30 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Lack of motivation and pathetic-ness is really not something to romanticise.

People always ask hearts to bleed for these very random people, yet in your mind you know that you and your family if you had one, would weather it fine.

Problem isnt the "global problem", it's the person and nothing can change that, especially my car emissions.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Duwelon on 5/30/2009 11:23:01 AM , Rating: 5
Don't argue logic, this is another douchebag Jason Mick article about how you should give up your freedoms for junk science. Nice use of pics btw Jason, pure emotion is all you've got.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By snakeInTheGrass on 5/30/2009 1:29:34 PM , Rating: 4
The top picture looks pretty cool though, I'd like to see a higher res version.

The second... yep, it is sad that there are hungry children. If we don't want pictures of starving kids, how about we don't have them in the first place if there's no food? I can't believe global warming was so sudden that the bountiful harvests in whatever place that picture is from dried up between the kids being conceived and now.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By GlassHouse69 on 6/1/2009 2:49:44 AM , Rating: 4
my friend lives in Ethiopia. He told me that the country is fine and healthy for thousands of years now. The southern? border holds a group that is a warring group, cut off from imports. this is the group that was starving who also never received the aid because the northern, main populace wanted to see that they would die.

just an example of "hungry children" scenario. It was not due to poverty.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By clovell on 6/1/2009 10:36:56 AM , Rating: 3
And also not due to personal failings.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mindless1 on 6/1/2009 5:37:05 PM , Rating: 1
It is not a personal failing to choose war instead of peaceful co-existence? Granted I don't know the timeline, if the group were being cut off for political reasons rather than military ones, it would not be surprising if they had to resort to militant actions in an attempt to survive.

Either way though, staying where there is not enough food seems like a personal choice to me unless they are crippled physically.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By clovell on 6/2/2009 12:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
... or unless you are unarmed and there are poeple with guns keeping you from getting to more habitable land.

Many of these people didn't choose to have their ethnic faction hated and subjected to genocide by the opposing faction in power. It has nothing to do with personal choice.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mindless1 on 6/2/2009 8:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
How many borders are guarded in their entirety along such a wasteland that it can't feed people?

Do you presume ALL of these people were forced to live there instead of either moving there in the first place, or being born to parents that should not be having children that they can't feed?

It is a personal choice to stay among those in your ethnic faction and starve, and be targeted by an apposing faction in power. If you leave the barren land and those being attacked, you chose life. If you leave your ethnic faction you become separate from them, a random immigrant instead of the enemy.

I am not suggesting this is true 100% of the time, but I am suggesting it is true a lot of the time and if there are fewer people then a region with a low level of life sustaining resources will keep those who remain, healthier.

This is the way it has always been. When a rabbit runs out of food where it sits, it will hop further away from it's home even if there are bound to be predators out there. Some will be caught and slaughtered, but it allows the rest to survive.

When wasn't there some risk journeying away from home? Yet, we humans have done so from the first cradles of civilization. Does it really matter whether a man thousands of years ago was potentially killed by a rock or spear instead of a gun today? Not so much.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mindless1 on 6/1/2009 5:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to disagree. They were too poor to support their war efforts. Given more money, a larger more powerful military could be built, or importers found that are more willing to force their way into the marketplace even with outside resistance trying to cut off supplies.

Then there is the mobility factor. IMO, a sane people will not have such emotional ties to a land that they stay in one place just to starve.

Given sufficient money they have better chances of migration, though ultimately there is still the issue you mentioned that if people chose war then those they wage it against will do what they can to weaken their enemy even if it is a purely defensive move in doing so.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By slunkius on 6/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Amazing Outcome
By clovell on 6/1/2009 10:39:15 AM , Rating: 3
> bet you would have a very different opinion if you were born in Sudan or Bangladesh.

Sudan is a very unfortunate situation, and I doubt any of us sitting behind computers in Air Conditioned rooms would last long with sticks and stones against government henchmen with automatic rifles - much less thrive.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By clovell on 6/1/2009 10:35:47 AM , Rating: 3
No, the problem is not simply a personal one. Much of the third world's problems are a result of 'civil' instability, not Global Warming. To combat that, what is needed is for someone to keep folks like the the Janjaweed from killing the fathers and raping the mothers in front of the children, so they can focus on taking care of themselves.

Say whatever you want about Global Warming, but please, don't degrade these people further by telling them how they should simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they have stones to combat AK-47s.

It's ironic that your handle is GlassHouse - Go watch 'The Devil Came on Horseback', a documentary on the Darfur region in Sudan, and then tell me it's a personal problem.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mindless1 on 6/1/2009 5:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
So they choose to continue living in what is essentially a war zone.

Let me put it in simple terms. Suppose I really really want to eat at a restaurant, but every time I pull into the parking lot someone shoots a gun at me. If I call the police and they do nothing, I choose to eat somewhere else instead.

People have migrated away from hostile environments since the beginning of recorded history and presumably since the beginning of rational thought.

If all you have is a stone against an AK-47, you either get yourself equal or better weapons and training, or you move out of harm's way. Does not a rabbit run when a fox comes after it? Does not a person in the street try to keep from being hit by an oncoming car? Does not a fish try to stay in water?

These are the natural rules of self preservation, even if fighting out of principle there is no sane end in all those of principle dying and the victor carrying on with the opposing principles.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By clovell on 6/2/2009 1:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
Let me explain this to you. Nobody wants to give them weapons and piss of the Sudanese government. Nobody wants to train them. They can't cross borders into other countries because other countries don't want them.

The Sudanese government flies helicopters throughout the wilderness to find groups of these folks, then radios their vector and location to Janjaweed cavalry units, who are more than happy to take that information and kill these people. The government then claims they had nothing to do with the conflict, and the UN decides that there isn't enough evidence to do anything.

These people aren't like the old geezers who stayed in New Orleans when Katrina came through. They do leave, when they can. Entire towns are typically ambushed and the survivors leave and later join up with other refugees in makeshift camps. There are resistance fighters, but they are few, and they can't defend everyone.

In these areas, technology has far outpaced civilization and the result is genocide. Believe me, not a single person wants to be in the situation.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mindless1 on 6/2/2009 8:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
All of them may not be able to cross, but certainly some can. See prior remark where I wrote survival of the fittest. Is it fair? Probably not, and a shame when unfairness allows some to die, but that is life and there is a solution for some of them which is better than none, and as I've mentioned already the fewer there are the better the resources available (food, water, etc) can support them.

I did not mean to imply someone wants to be in that situation, not all choices in life are as clear cut as safety and bliss versus danger and death, but remember what this topic and the report were about, a lot of people dying by staying where they were, and having children in this environment, watching them die.

Which is better, a chance of a better life or watching yourself and your child die?

Are you claiming 100% of those sought by the Sudanese government were caught? If they are being killed anyway, can they not break up into multiple groups so when the Janjaweed cavalry moves, there is a gap?

Do the resistance fighters have to protect everyone, or only those escaping?

That there are obstacles is not a proof it cannot be done. Throughout history groups of people did not welcome travelers through their lands, but people migrated to occupy many parts of the world regardless. There was certainly death along the way, but mostly the peoples came to lands that they flourished upon instead of starving. At least they tried.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Hlafordlaes on 5/31/2009 6:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
About that Darwinism and the assumed global mobility of the workforce: Given any thought to the fact that the world is now comprised of nation-states? As recently as 2-3 centuries ago you could just up and move; not any more. And there are populations who were pushed into and are maintained on marginal farm land as a matter of policy, including in the US.

Readily available birth control an easy remedy in the Third World? Ask King George what he did to the funding for that for 8 years.

The report cited in the article may be highly flawed, but the prejudice hiding behind your platitudes is a far sorrier sight.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mindless1 on 6/1/2009 9:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
The world was divided into nation-states long, long ago before people migrated. Further, one need not necessarily move to another country, there is often food within the same.

You want to treat this as a "population" as if a herd of sheep, while I am saying each individual decides where to go, what to do for their survival, including not having children if there is already not enough food.

Birth control? What a silly thought, if you don't have enough to eat and see children around you starving, survival takes precedent over luxuries like sex. It is even cruel to the malnourished woman to have her grow a child inside the womb.

You seem to not understand the concept of personal responsability, then excuse it by suggesting that someone else who offers a hint why some people starve and others don't, must be prejudice.

Your idea on the matter perpetuates the problem by making excuses. Mine increases the number of those who move on to a better life and by decreasing the population in these areas, leaves more food and water for those who remain.

This is always how it has been and always how it will be. People who have no wealth, are not violent, do not go against the grain with their politics and religion, those who barely stay alive which we speak about, are not typically targets for control unless a large group attempt something, in which case there is concern in any land about a mob mentality causing problems.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Strunf on 6/1/2009 9:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
That's just stupid no country in the world would allow millions of people to move in just like that, when even the wealthy US as restrictions to immigration what makes you think that much less wealthy countries in Africa would have open borders...

Darwinism ? pfft what crap have you smoked no people with a sane mind would allow millions of people to die just cause of the "survival of the fittest" rule, and what have you done to deserve to move on? you were just lucky enough to be born where you were and not in some country ravaged by war, famine and diseases.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mindless1 on 6/1/2009 9:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
1) You, not I, suggested millions exodus at once. In nature we see it all the time, any particular ecosystem can only support so many living things, those that survive either migrate or adapt.

2) Who said Africans had to move to the US? Do you really think there is no food in Africa? Take for example someone already living in the US in the desert. We'd think they were pretty dumb if they complained that they starve and are thirsty all the time because there they have no water to drink or grow crops and no money to truck in the water, but do we think they need to move to another country or just where it is more hospitable within their own?

3) Yes, Darwinism. You write no people with a ane mind would allow millions to die, but that is documented fact that it has happened, is happening, will happen in the future if nothing changes.

What have "I" done to deserve to move on? Nothing difficult to understand, I exercise CHOICE, choice, choice. When in this life is something not about choice? If I want a drink, even if it is in the frigerator, I CHOOSE to go as far away as that fridge is. IF the fridge is empty I CHOOSE to go to the store to refill it. If I have no money to go to the store I CHOOSE to travel as far as necessary to obtain work so I have money, and if that distance is too great to travel to go back home on a regular basis, I CHOOSE to move closer to the place of employment, food, and water.

I was lucky where I was born, but would die just the same if I did not get up, go out, and travel to the places and do the things necessary to survive. Hell, even someone on welfare has to get up off their butt and get the check, cash it, go to the store, etc.

On the other hand, no I am not particularly lucky where I was born. I seek to be around those that do as I do, contribute to our well being as a community as well as a nation.

I hope you are beginning to understand, what I and others do to deserve to move on is to choose to, and to do it. Action, not breeding more children until in a safe and healthly environment to raise them.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Strunf on 6/2/2009 4:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
1)It's known that there are millions starving so yes there would be millions moving, migrate WHERE? if there was a safe heaven in Africa there wouldn't be thousands trying to reach Europe on fortune boats...

2)I never said they would come to the US I only stated that the US (like any other country) has laws to stop immigrants, why do you think a much less wealthy country in Africa would allow an influx of immigrants without any restrictions? The fact is people aren't allowed to move freely.

3)Yes it happens but it's not cause you allow it but cause it doesn't depend on you.

CHOICE? well know that many have NO CHOICE, If I asked them if they wanted to come to a country where there is a "place of employment, food, and water" what do you think they would answer?... give me a break will you.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mindless1 on 6/2/2009 8:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
1) No, not necessarily millions moving ALL at once, they did not pop up there in the blink of an eye and will not migrate in the blink of an eye. In fact it is not necessary for all of them to move, only enough that the population does not exceed the capability of the region to support them.

2) The US has laws to stop immigrants, but do you concede there are immigrants here? While I am against illegal immigration I would rather they did it than starve to death if given only these two options.

The fact is, if you are starving to death it doesn't much matter who "gives you permission" to move.

3) You imply they have to be invited, someone has to say "c'mon go this way I'll take you". This has never been the way of most immigrants, they decided to leave without an official invitation.

Give you a break? They are starving to death, give me a break. Fortune favors the bold.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Strunf on 6/6/2009 4:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
1) Why not millions at once? in countries that have over 10 million people it wouldn't be too hard to imagine that we are speaking of millions that need to move...

2) And to where would they move? Again what country in Africa can afford a huge influx of immigrants just like that?

3) Yes and that's why so many die on the way and even if they get anywhere chances are they will be sent back in no time, today it's not as easy as it was 50 years back to work with no papers.

blah blah blah I would see how bold you would be if you had been born in some countries, it's easy to brag about your boldness when you have never been in country ravaged by war and other issues, but hey this is the Internet it's perfectly natural to think that millions die of starvation cause they wanted to.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By FaceMaster on 5/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Amazing Outcome
By chmilz on 5/29/2009 1:19:53 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Meanwhile the 50 poorest nations only contribute 1 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. The report says this situation -- and the death toll -- will only get worse, if action is not taken.

And if they had the same money as us, they'd produce the same amount of greenhouse gasses since they'd be living in a modern, industrialized country with cars, air conditioning, and food that comes from around the world.

These groups will leave out 90% of the facts and completely disregard any reasoning whatsoever to sway idiots to their cause.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 5/29/2009 2:43:39 PM , Rating: 5
Energy consumption tracks global productivity figures almost exactly. The US uses about 25% of global energy, yet we produce about 25% of global goods and services. Go figure. This holds true for almost all other countries.

Anyway, since Venus, Mars and Jupiter are experiencing global warming to the same percentage as the Earth, it is probably a solar issue. The Earth also hasn't regained the high temperature it had in 1700, after the mini-ice age of the 1850's. What was global warming attributable to in the late 1600's?


RE: Amazing Outcome
By MrPeabody on 5/29/2009 3:01:10 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Anyway, since Venus, Mars and Jupiter are experiencing global warming to the same percentage as the Earth,


Sure. In all fairness, however, it's not getting any easier to live on those planets either. Especially if you're poor.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By bupkus on 5/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing Outcome
By PlasmaBomb on 5/29/2009 3:42:49 PM , Rating: 4
According to the poster - high temp 1700's, low 1800

Let me show you...

.......\............_
........\........../
.........\......../
..........\______/
.......|.....|.....|
.....1700..1800...1900

So your comprehension is certainly broken if not your calendar.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By PlasmaBomb on 5/29/2009 3:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
The positive gradient needs moved slightly to the right sorry :(


RE: Amazing Outcome
By just4U on 5/29/2009 4:38:56 PM , Rating: 5
oh wow .. that could be the shopping cart theory! :D


RE: Amazing Outcome
By fictisiousname on 5/29/2009 9:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
...and the shopping cart is half empty!


RE: Amazing Outcome
By plowak on 5/29/2009 3:55:14 PM , Rating: 5
"What was global warming attributable to in the late 1600's?"

Friction between science and the church?


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mandrews on 5/29/2009 8:59:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"What was global warming attributable to in the late 1600's?"

Friction between science and the church?


Joking aside, the notable cooling in the 1800s and other centuries in recorded history is thought to correspond to sun activity. The theory that man is somehow affecting climate patterns that have been similarly cycling for centuries is specious at best.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By inighthawki on 5/29/2009 10:52:01 PM , Rating: 4
What i like to wonder is that they say we are still "steadily increasing", yet as far as i know, a lot of large corporations have "gone green" and our emissions have even been cut by a pretty good chunk. If our emissions are cut and its still increasing steadily, doesn't that logically conclude that WE are not the cause?


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Darkefire on 5/30/2009 12:12:10 AM , Rating: 3
I'm assuming by "we" you mean the U.S. And it's true, we've cut our emissions considerably yet predictions and models grow ever more dire. I wonder what could be causing all those emissions?

*Looks over to China*

Oh, that's right. Silly me, forgetting that when a nation industrializes and starts using energy that it becomes another evil contributor to global warming. Even if global warming is caused by man (jury is still out and will be out indefinitely) how exactly do we plan on stopping it? All the environmentalists will tell you to "go green", conveniently forgetting that spending extra on hybrid cars, organic foods, and all that other new-age junk is restricted to the classes that don't worry about starvation on a regular basis. Who wants to be the ones that have to go tell the Chinese that while it's great they're becoming a first-world nation they have to go back to rice farming and poverty because they're contributing to pollution and global warming?


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Nfarce on 5/30/2009 11:08:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Who wants to be the ones that have to go tell the Chinese that while it's great they're becoming a first-world nation they have to go back to rice farming and poverty because they're contributing to pollution and global warming?


Not contributing to it based on power generation, but LEADING it:

According to the new CARMA data released today, Chinese power plants will produce about 3.1 billion tons of CO2 this year, up from about 2.7 billion tons in 2007(*This number was revised on 8/28/08*). Power plants in the U.S will produce about 2.8 billion tons of CO2 this year, about the same as last year. If all power plants currently planned in China and the U.S. are eventually built, China’s power-related emissions will exceed those of the U.S. by 40 percent.

But to your point on who would be questioning China's advancement and telling them to go back to rice farming, certainly not Kofi, laughably mentioned in this article, and the (UN)FCCC. But, you can throw in India in your point as well. Just look at the original Kyoto Treaty and see where China and India are mentioned as having to cut emissions at the same level as the US.

Besides, that has never stopped anyone from telling America we need to go back to grass roots - literally - living. Advances in civilization have side effects. It is up to said advanced civilizations to control the side effects accordingly. The US started doing it in the 1970s. The only time China cared about the environment was when the Olympics were coming.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By snakeInTheGrass on 5/30/2009 1:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Which is what made whole Kyoto such a joke - ignore the 'emerging' nations because you don't want to put a burden on them? Uh... OK, but is the CO2 a problem or not? Because if it is, you can't afford to exclude the growing output of those countries (as is incredibly clear now and really was back then too - one of the Bush calls that was actually totally correct...).

So let's give Gore got a Nobel prize!?

Anyway, I'd love to see the US do a real push for fusion - we can spend trillions on banks, wars, un-competitive pricing on drugs for the elderly, but where's the trillion or 2 for a real new energy source? (Please not wind/solar - I mean an actual dependable energy source... unless we're thinking solar in space and beamed back to Earth).

That presumably would let us cut CO2 (assuming that's a problem), cut the energy dependence on nations that are dubious at best, reduce the future storage issues for spent fuel (still need to deal with what has been done), and would probably clean up our own air even if CO2 specifically wasn't an issue (all the other particulates & gasses). Not to forget- then we could point the finger at the rest of the world for being dirty bastards! ;)


RE: Amazing Outcome
By jrollins006 on 6/1/2009 8:29:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
From here on out, we drop a giant ice cube into the water, and each and every year it will take an even larger ice cube, therefor solving the problem once and for all. I SAID ONCE AND FOR ALL!


gotta love futurama, what cracks me up is i just watched "An inconvenient(spelling?) Truth" in class and correct me if im wrong but doesnt al gore have the most un-economic safe house? Another thing is during this movie it shows him driving an SUV =p


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mikeyD95125 on 5/31/2009 2:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
Cut by a good chunk? What size of a chunk are you talking about. Even if the US cuts our emissions by 10% (which we haven't) there is still another 7.5 billion tons of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere.

I think we can logically conclude that no one has fully answered the global warming question.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Danish1 on 5/30/2009 1:46:47 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Anyway, since Venus, Mars and Jupiter are experiencing global warming to the same percentage as the Earth, it is probably a solar issue.


That's a silly conclusion.

It obviously proves there's intelligent life and industrialized nations on those planets we haven't discovered yet.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Ammohunt on 5/29/2009 2:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly not to mention what is their base comparison? when the earth population was half of what it is today? you can make up anything just based on population growth.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mattclary on 5/29/2009 3:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
Also, what is their reproduction rate?

Forget the fact that this focuses on "Muslims taking over the world", but the facts on reproduction are pretty accurate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU


RE: Amazing Outcome
By ekv on 5/30/2009 4:16:52 AM , Rating: 4
Good point. You also see this idea in "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer. My favorite is the T-shirt worn by muslim youth that says "2030: and then we take over". [Interesting that Europe is so concerned about Global Warming ... and nary a peep about the demographic explosion that their socialist governments are financing; they are scared to talk about it.]

Ok, that's a ways off topic. I think as far as Africa is concerned, given their political and economic situation, the birthrate may be a combination of carpe diem and the blind hope that their child may be the lucky one to survive. Their reproduction/fertility rate may be high, but how many survive even a year?

It's sad to see their culture in jeopardy though I hardly think that the rest of the civilized world paying the "Global Warming" price tag is going to solve their problems.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Jaybus on 5/29/2009 1:21:56 PM , Rating: 3
I notice that following the quick disclaimer as to the cause of global warming, they just couldn't help but point out that the 50 poorest nations only generate 1% of emissions and desperately urge that a successor to the Kyoto agreement be approved.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By VitalyTheUnknown on 5/29/2009 3:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have a better idea than ineffective Kyoto agreement to tackle global warming problem, I do actually hope to receive recognition and Nobel price for that, It is very simple to fathom concept, it just needs a bit of modulation and revision from science community, so here it is:

AS all people know, from little kids to "Institute for the Study of Earth" and respectable scientist around the world, we have a lot of cold snow on north and south poles witch is useless to us Humans anyway, it is time to put ice and snow into action, let's just cool a bit the Sun with a biggest snowball fight in planet earth history, we just have to perfect our aiming techniques.
All models and simulations show that mixing cold substances with hot even as violent hot as close to sun temperature will result in fuse of materials and change of physical properties in this case obvious decline of star temperature.
That is the only real solution that must be implemented as soon as possible, before sun slowly evaporate all our reserves of cold snow. Thank you. :)



RE: Amazing Outcome
By DarkElfa on 5/29/2009 1:20:19 PM , Rating: 4
Well, I'll crit it then. How do they come up with these arbitrary numbers they use to support these claims, I mean its precocious and absurd at the same time. How do you go about attributing which deaths to global warming or what has caused what cost to what industry?! This is grand standing of the highest caliber by the raving global warming community. The facts are that they have as much evidence to support this nonsense as the religious right has to support creationism, IOW its all about what you want to believe and what you have faith in, but its anything but true scientific fact. Hypothesis maybe, but certainly not indisputable fact.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By randomposter on 5/29/2009 1:30:24 PM , Rating: 3
The section on Methodology is found in the PDF version of the report, starting on page 83. What is your specific critique of the methodology used?


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Keeir on 5/29/2009 1:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
http://assets.ghf-ge.org/downloads/humanimpactrepo...

Link to the Full Report. I believe this was missing from the article


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Keeir on 5/29/2009 2:09:10 PM , Rating: 5
Problems with the Methology

Section 1: Weather related calculation
#1. Frequency of Weather related events was based on "Relative Number of Loss Events". IE, a flood was not considered a flood unless it created a "loss" event.

#2. Relative number of weather events due to natural variation was tied to earthquakes. This seems illogical to assume that as the number of earthquakes rise, the number of weather events rise in a similar way. Again, this is not tied to the actual number of earthquakes, but rather the number of earthquakes that resulted in "loss events". Potentially, if they had shown earthquakes were consistent in nature during the period, we could assume a similar rise due to increased population density, but this is unknown.

#3. Many "weather" related problems can also be worsed/caused by poor development... especially in man-made regions. Floods and effectives of storms can be made much worse by erosion, poor housing conditions, crowding, etc. I did not see this taken into account properly in the section of frequency, yet in project loss of life and property, it is highlighted.

They end with the fairly ridiculous "conclusion" from thier assumptions that 40% of current "extreme" weather is due to climate change. 40%!. That fails the basic sniff test of rationability.

Going through the rest of thier sections, I end of with the same picture.

Conclusion (IMO): They make worst case assumptions at every possible chance. Reasonable assimptions, but always choosing the highest possibility snowballs into the final report end figures which are extremely high as a consquence.

I would have liked them to clearly report the error bars on thier figures, as I believe these would be quite shocking. Report, between 100,000 and 400,000 people a year could be dieing from Climate Change is much more likely the title then.

I was also surprized that reading the report, my conclusion is that in the short term, devoting money to infrastructure and sanitation improvements would likely be a better use of the funds to reduce climate related problems than reducing emissions...


RE: Amazing Outcome
By TomZ on 5/29/2009 2:21:11 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I was also surprized that reading the report, my conclusion is that in the short term, devoting money to infrastructure and sanitation improvements would likely be a better use of the funds to reduce climate related problems than reducing emissions...
There's no question that is right. And "Robin Hood" organizations like this one are okay with that outcome as well, so long as "rich" nations make big pledges to pay for that kind of infrastructure.

Great analysis, by the way. That's exactly the kind of report I'd expect from Kofi Annan and GHF.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By superflex on 5/29/2009 3:25:37 PM , Rating: 5
Once I saw Kofi Annan's name associated with this study, I printed the article and wiped my ass.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By randomposter on 5/29/2009 4:31:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Relative number of weather events due to natural variation was tied to earthquakes. This seems illogical to assume that as the number of earthquakes rise, the number of weather events rise in a similar way.

Um. No.

The report explicitly states that part of the methodology is to exclude geophysical disasters such as earthquakes as not being linked to climate change.

Not sure whether are intentionally trying to discredit the methodology, or whether you just didn't read very carefully when you came up with this.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Keeir on 5/29/2009 6:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
Double Fail

#1. You misunderstood my post. No where do I say they included earthquake damage as part of global warming. If they did, that would have been definately said loud clear

#2. In the methodology section, they discuss ways to eliminate factors that could increase the number of floods,etc that cause loss. They Tie the number to the number of earthquakes that cause loss. They only count the floods and etc that exist above that mark as eligible for "climate change induced weather". However, this is a weak and teneous link. For instance, no where do they clearly state the number of earthquakes from year to year is consisent, the location of the earthquakes or that the area of the earth quakes experience similar "X" factors as the rest of the planet. Overall, it seems to be poorly explained at best, and poorly reasoned at worst.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By randomposter on 5/29/2009 8:44:16 PM , Rating: 1
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't a clever piece of statistics.

In your own earlier post you state:
quote:
Many "weather" related problems can also be worsed/caused by poor development... especially in man-made regions. Floods and effectives of storms can be made much worse by erosion, poor housing conditions, crowding, etc. I did not see this taken into account properly

The authors use earthquakes as a proxy for things like construction standards, emergency response, and other things that impact the amount of "loss" that will be suffered as a result of a natural disaster. In this way, they can normalize the data to account only for the increase in "loss" over time due to climate-related disaster.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Keeir on 6/1/2009 1:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The authors use earthquakes as a proxy for things like construction standards, emergency response, and other things that impact the amount of "loss" that will be suffered as a result of a natural disaster. In this way, they can normalize the data to account only for the increase in "loss" over time due to climate-related disaster.


Which is totally silly. Earthquakes are significantly different animal than climate issues.

Its a clever peice of statistics ment to make it seem like they are normalizing data when nothing of the sort has occured.

Maybe we should tie climate related disasters to volcano eruptions next?


RE: Amazing Outcome
By knutjb on 5/29/2009 8:16:23 PM , Rating: 4
Yep anything with Kofi's finger print is very suspect.

1."nevertheless compare favourably to the similar scale cyclone Nargis, which hit Myanmar in 2008, resulting in close to 150.000 deaths and economic losses of around $4 billion."
A little problem is that Myanmar refused to let the US Navy provide life saving help until it was too late for most of that 150,000. That IS NOT the rest of the worlds fault or global warming period. It's Myanmar's for failing to plan in advance of and preventing those who wanted to help from doing so. From some of the most respected climatologist in the US there is no proof of man made cyclones/hurricanes and 30 years of history is not enough to prove a trend of any kind for a subject measured in millions of years. Weather satellites were put up in the 70s. We are still learning how read the data.

2. Another incredible misrepresentation is the impact of war and unstable governments in Africa. The constant waring has pushed refugees back and forth consuming all plant life turning parts of the continent into barren wasteland like the dust bowl in Oklahoma in the 30s. You kill the farms you kill the food... That is incredibly hard to recover from.

3. Didn't Al Gore, using the UN's own numbers, claimed the seas would rise by 20 ft. The latest climate fear factor release claimed about 1 foot. Nobody has a handle on what is happening and they are excluding a few areas of interest like solar output which we don't have an accurate way to measure at this time, moisture in the atmosphere no way to measure it either, and the algorithms themselves , when they calculated the 20 foot sea rise it was the same for New York and Fiji kind of forgetting the earth spins and centrifugal forces...

This is really nothing more than the UN pushing world socialism, with the UN at the helm, of course. Given all of Kofi's Fraud Waste and Abuse of funds at the UN, Oil for food, remodeling over charges, money "spent" but no one can account for it... I can only see this as another fund raiser for him and his friends using pity for those truly suffering to scare the rest of us into handing over the treasuries to him. Sorry to let him know the US is broke today and only getting worse, you'll see that when the inflation hits from all the printing of cash but not quite as bad as Zimbabwe. Look for the Obama quintillion dollar bill coming your way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_number...


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Nfarce on 5/30/2009 11:18:56 AM , Rating: 3
"Facts...are stubborn things." --John Adams

Nobody ever said the UN and other various misfit organizations that wish for global wealth redistribution care about facts.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By randomposter on 5/29/2009 4:40:03 PM , Rating: 1
Only on DT would somebody be modded down to oblivion for asking another poster to provide a rational, logical critique.

Thanks for the laugh guys.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Regs on 5/29/2009 8:12:39 PM , Rating: 4
Ouch that sucks. I would of rated you up, but I wasted my vote saying "ouch that sucks".


RE: Amazing Outcome
By swizeus on 5/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Amazing Outcome
By invidious on 5/29/2009 1:48:48 PM , Rating: 5
I think I speak for everyone when I say... uh what?


RE: Amazing Outcome
By mattclary on 5/29/2009 3:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
What exactly did we "extract" from poor African nations?


RE: Amazing Outcome
By drebo on 5/29/2009 3:40:12 PM , Rating: 4
All the black people. Let's ship 'em back like he asks.

(In poor taste, I know...but it's Friday and it's the internet, so shut up.)


RE: Amazing Outcome
By superflex on 5/29/2009 4:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget AIDS and HIV. Let's give 'em back Magic Johnson as well


RE: Amazing Outcome
By snakeInTheGrass on 5/30/2009 2:08:56 PM , Rating: 3
Apparently we extracted their democratic ideals, stole their soil, shut down all of their high-tech companies... Oh, now that I think about it, not really.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By arazok on 5/29/2009 2:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
I also haven’t read the study, but if it’s like any other ‘future impact’ studies, I’m sure it will not account for adaptation and assume that we sit around like rocks as certain regions become prone to droughts, while others become wet. Because that’s what humans have always done in response to climate change – starved to death rather than adapt. <rolls eyes>

The reason I won’t look further into this study, is because I’m willing to blindly embrace its findings as 100% true! Finally, a study that shows disease, overpopulation, and poor governance are all far more deadly then climate change! Now, can we stop wasting our recourses fighting this minor problem, and concentrate of the real killers?


RE: Amazing Outcome
By slawless on 5/29/2009 2:35:28 PM , Rating: 5
I love when they throw out these numbers, hoping you won’t think or ask questions. 315,000 people since 2003. How do they know that? They don’t. They just pull it out of thin air. The 125B dollar number and predictions for the future came from the same source. Also, let’s put that in perspective; about the same amount of people have died in car accidents in the US over the same time period.

As to the GW argument:

Through out the last century the temp rose and so did the CO2 concentration. What they won’t tell you is solar luminosity also rose. Since 2000, CO2 has continued to rise. Yet the earth stopped warming, and has begun to cool (rapidly in the last 2 years). Solar luminosity has declined over the same period. You put it together. But you can’t tax the hell out of solar luminosity.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Keeir on 5/29/2009 4:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, let’s put that in perspective; about the same amount of people have died in car accidents in the US over the same time period.


To be fair, they did compare Global Warming deaths to Breast Cancer deaths (In the Full Report)

But I don't think thats the same/reasonable comparison. Malaria, Seasonal Flu, Starvation, etc all seem much more reasonable, as proper medical/infrastructure/etc dollars can make large differences to these killers. Where-as cancer rates are not (significantly) dropped by having better hospitals/roads/diet.

Malaria from the CDC

quote:
Each year 350–500 million cases of malaria occur worldwide, and over one million people die, most of them young children in sub-Saharan Africa.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By PlasmaBomb on 5/31/2009 4:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on the type of cancer. Better hospitals should mean better diagnosis and access to the best anticancer drugs. That should put the survival rate for some cancers at 95%.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Grabo on 5/29/2009 5:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Irony.

You mock them for 'pulling numbers out of thin air', and then you yourself, in a rather American fashion pull out some exotic theory as to why global warming is something corrupt politicians have vomited all over your new tux.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/ab... : dated sept 14 2006 >

"The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. "

"...and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century"

Though it also says "Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. " so I expect to hear something about magnetized plasmas any day now.

As for the Co2 - temperature correlation - no one (intelligent) said it was year-by-year perfect.

However: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2008_tem... .>
"The ten warmest years on record have all occurred between 1997 and 2008."


RE: Amazing Outcome
By inighthawki on 5/29/2009 11:01:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
However: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2008_tem... .> "The ten warmest years on record have all occurred between 1997 and 2008."

Those numbers mean nothing. What about the entire period from the industrial revolution up until 1997, was that just adding up the CO2 until suddenly from 1997 on we started producing a disastrous amount more? I keep hearing the claims that if we dont stop within a few years we're history, but yet we have been doing this for about 200 years with no problems. Why is this suddenly a problem now? I highly doubt we produce more at this very moment than over the course of a couple hundred years


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Grabo on 5/30/2009 11:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What about the entire period from the industrial revolution up until 1997, was that just adding up the CO2 until suddenly from 1997 on we started producing a disastrous amount more? I


Why 1997? Again, 'exotic' claims without links are worthless. (Even if people here will downrate whatever they don't agree with, no matter at all how much it is backed up)

Temps have been going (unsteadily) up since long before 1997: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif

And again- whoever told you co2 and global temps were tightly in sync? They aren't, but they most certainly are heavily correlated.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By segerstein on 5/30/2009 5:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
$125bn is peanuts!

How much is BHO going to spend to save these $125bn of supposed global warming damage???

1st destroy carmakers with CAFE, then bail them out and wipe bond holding pension funds. All for the sake of saving meagerly $125bn (that's worldwide, not just US&EU&JP&AU)


RE: Amazing Outcome
By maverick85wd on 5/31/2009 12:19:13 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
you can’t tax the hell out of solar luminosity.


oh, I'm sure they'll find a way.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By AlexWade on 5/29/2009 3:54:07 PM , Rating: 5
I don't need to look at the report because it is pure escalation. The title and first few lines show that. People are getting better informed and are starting to question these climate change reports. If people don't believe in climate change, there goes the $funding$ and/or political influence. So there are two options: prove your claims; or make people even more scared. Since they cannot prove global warming/climate change, that really leaves only one option.

Last year, we were told the arctic would be ice free. Did that happen? No, in fact the arctic had MORE ice in 2008 than 2009. It was escalation. It is designed to make you so scared that you will not dare question and thus keep given them money. This report is also escalation. Oh no, 315,000 (or whatever number they said) people die every year! [Just please ignore all the data that shows global warming stopped, and please ignore the simple fact that warm weather is better for plants and animals, and please ignore the fact these bad weather events have been going on since earth was green, and please ignore the fact that we need more easy money.]

Next year, I expect an even more alarmist story than this. France has a climate change skeptic in a high government role. ABC is running a cartoon show making fun of environments in a primetime spot. The economy is bad and thus people are too concerned about it to think about other issues. And they certainly will not like hearing about carbon taxes when the economy is bad. Hurricane activity is way down. The solution is to become even more alarmist. They have a whole year to scare people, lets see what lies they come up with next.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By AlexWade on 5/29/2009 9:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, check out this link dated June 30, 2008:
http://www.dailytech.com/Global+Warming+to+Melt+No...

(And please forgive my bad grammar in the last paragraph of my last post.)


RE: Amazing Outcome
By ArcliteHawaii on 5/29/2009 10:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
Look, just because some idiot made some poor prediction about the arctic ice doesn't mean that the trend is for less ice year over year. The data clearly shows a lossy trend with great variability year over year.

See chart here:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090504_...


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Grabo on 5/30/2009 11:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
Much too rational (and true). Spin that, Wade?

If you can write "[Just please ignore all the data that shows global warming stopped, and please ignore the simple fact that warm weather is better for plants and animals, and please ignore the fact these bad weather events have been going on since earth was green, and please ignore the fact that we need more easy money.]" with a straight face, I bet you can come up with something special to prove that that corrupt scaremongering melting pice is just trying to make you pay more taxes.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Grabo on 5/30/2009 11:56:06 AM , Rating: 2
ice, obviously, not pice.

We all know pice isn't in decline.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By AlexWade on 5/30/2009 3:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
No spin.

My point seems to be missed by some. My point is simple: reports that global warming is real are getting more and more alarmists in an attempt to prevent you from doing your own research and proving to yourself if global warming is real or not. I used last year's "no ice in the arctic" claim to show how these groups are escalating the alarmist claims. Yesterday, an ice free world and we are to blame. Today, poor children starving to death and we are to blame. Tomorrow ...

Believe what you want, I care not. But please do not believe these reports that are clearly exaggerations.

That part in brackets was meant to be sarcasm and a hyperbole. So no, it was not meant to be with a straight face, ergo in brackets.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Grabo on 5/30/2009 4:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That part in brackets was meant to be sarcasm and a hyperbole. So no, it was not meant to be with a straight face, ergo in brackets.


Yeah? Doesn't seem like it. The point with that bit, as with the unbracketed parts of your post, appears to be that corrupt people are trying to scare the good people out of their money and that climate change is a complete hoax.

And you begin that top-rated post by saying that you haven't even read the report because you don't have to.

How can NASA be the most successful space agency in the world? If all americans believe they are crooks and liars, I mean?

And further down someone says (or is it sarcasm, meant to convey an opposite meaning?) that they'll shoot whoever tries to stop them from eating hamburgers while revving their humvee with their 9mm.

I keep forgetting my cardinal rule: Yankees are friendly and really fun to socialize with, but don't never ever bring up climate change or guns.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Grabo on 5/30/2009 4:45:51 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh, and I very clearly can't write.

Hard to insult an entire nation when you trip over your own feet (my point is valid, my grammar and spelling aren't) :p


RE: Amazing Outcome
By tech329 on 5/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Amazing Outcome
By Screwballl on 5/30/2009 5:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
Socialism at its best, and with the current socialist leadership in the White House, you can bet he will quietly sign anything relating to "for the greater good of humanity".

Atlas Shrugged, here we come.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By bill3 on 5/31/2009 8:29:43 AM , Rating: 2
Ironically, it's the poor hurt by far the most by global warming mythology.

Expensive energy caused by left wing global warming mythlogy regulations may be an inconvenience to the west, but it kills the third world poor who cant afford a days meal, let alone a solar panel, when cheap energy is denied to them by the left.

I'm sure many in the third world have already indirectly died from global warming mythology.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By Belard on 6/3/2009 3:19:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah!

Because its important that we do nothing so that our future children and grandchildren have no planet to live on!

Geez, less than 1% of "scientist" say there isn't global warming. With the bulk of these working for energy companies or people who are not experts in the field ie: Michael Crichton who should stick to writing fiction... oh, never mind.

The Earth is a very complex machine. Stupidity on the people who are against the health of the planet are just that, stupid! There is ONLY one planet we can survive on, its this one, that's it.

All points of the planet are reporting problems. Luckily (somewhat) for us is that we also have a factor of global "cooling" which has helped us. IE: Aircraft contrails have helped reflect heat back out. More data than can fit in an article here or you have the ability or care to read.

Other than the OIL companies, no human has any business being PRO-POLLUTION!

Problems:
- Limited resouces
- overpopulation (it takes landspace to make FOOD)
- reduced food supplies (all fishing boats are going farther out to sea which also means reduced fish to reproduce!)
- water, gound and air pollution = more unhealthy people = more money lost for you and ME.

Either you don't have kids or not able to, I'd rather have my son have the best possible future as possible. I actually care.


RE: Amazing Outcome
By tlampen on 6/1/2009 12:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.


[grabs popcorn]
By randomposter on 5/29/2009 1:10:00 PM , Rating: 5
I look forward to the rational, fact-based discussion around this topic that is certain to ensue.




RE: [grabs popcorn]
By therealnickdanger on 5/29/2009 1:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
LOL


RE: [grabs popcorn]
By emergnsee on 5/29/2009 1:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
LOL x2


RE: [grabs popcorn]
By mmntech on 5/29/2009 1:31:46 PM , Rating: 5
I vote we all run around like chickens with their heads cut off shouting "goo goo ga joob" at the top of our lungs.

Specious reasoning, that's what this study is. Just because B causes C doesn't mean you can directly attribute both to A. The problems they list are problems humanity has faced for millennia. How can you attribute these 300,000+ deaths directly to AGW? It's a weak theory at best since even the so called consensus scientists aren't in agreement as to how global warming affects weather. People need to realize that weather change is not the same thing as global warming. The climate is in a constant state of flux and has been long before man began burning fossil fuels. It sounds to me like somebody made this up to get more grant money. At this point, I think I could blame just about anything on AGW and people would believe it. "Sorry officer for speeding but Global Warming made me do it".


RE: [grabs popcorn]
By smackababy on 5/29/2009 2:04:21 PM , Rating: 5
I am just wondering why people love to forget the earth has been through a few ice ages. It would take a clever person to figure out that since we are no longer in one, there must have been some sort of global warming to heat things up again. Climate will change regardless of human interaction, it has been like that since long before humans and will be long after.


RE: [grabs popcorn]
By smackababy on 5/29/2009 2:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
With that said, I am all for going green. I think anything that can help lower carbon foot prints is good for everything. But then again, I want a 100MPG Hummer.


RE: [grabs popcorn]
By Farfignewton on 5/29/2009 3:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But then again, I want a 100MPG Hummer.


That's too bad since they're likely on the way out. Given the progression from Hummer to Pale Imitation and then Complete Caricature, I'd say they H5 would likely have been exactly what you were looking for.


RE: [grabs popcorn]
By IcePickFreak on 5/29/2009 2:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm actually working on a book with Al Gore right now that focuses on ancient Egypt and the fact that they actually had invented the internal combustion engine and used it to help build the pyramids, cars, ect.. which, shortly after, killed the entire civilization. We need to learn from their mistakes!

The mini ice age during the 17th century? The price we paid for the Pyramid of Giza.


RE: [grabs popcorn]
By alpensiedler on 5/29/2009 2:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
agreed. flame on.


RE: [grabs popcorn]
By stromgald30 on 5/29/2009 2:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, you only really needed to read the title of the article and the author to know that this one would be entertaining.


Quick! Nuke the sun!
By therealnickdanger on 5/29/2009 1:10:21 PM , Rating: 5
We must destroy the sun if we expect to survive!

</irrational panic>




RE: Quick! Nuke the sun!
By retrospooty on 5/29/2009 1:25:47 PM , Rating: 4
Yup... I'm way tired of the panic mentality. its not just GW, its everything. SARS, Bird flu, swine flu - all amounts to nothing.


RE: Quick! Nuke the sun!
By radializer on 5/30/2009 7:06:33 AM , Rating: 4
I wonder if, sometime in the future, we would truly be in deep sh*t (for whatever reason) and end up not giving a damn at that point because we'd be very jaded with all the media outlets spewing eternal panic/FUD.

Truly ironic if that happens to be the downfall of the human race! :)


RE: Quick! Nuke the sun!
By retrospooty on 5/30/2009 11:58:25 AM , Rating: 3
LOL - yup. the old boy who cried wolf.

When the planet was in real danger, no-one paid attention, because the media outlets numbed us down over the years by panicking over every single minor ill-thought out report that was ever released.


How silly
By yacoub on 5/29/2009 1:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
considering global cooling is much more dangerous to poor and impoverished areas than global warming, and that the massive amount of money and energy spent trying to fight global warming would be much better spent feeding and clothing the poor, which is something we can actually impact to a noticeable degree.




RE: How silly
By Curelom on 5/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: How silly
By yacoub on 5/29/2009 3:08:33 PM , Rating: 5
Even the pictures accompanying this article are a sham constructed to make you think a rise of a couple degrees over a century are going to suddenly bake the entire planet into a hardened crust.

In reality, a slight warming trend would be BENEFICIAL to the poor as rainfall would increase and more areas of the globe would be able to support crop production, particularly in areas where many of the poor live that are moderately temperate and precipitative and in areas that would become so with a slight warming.

Also the entire concept is bogus that the tiny amount of warming that MAY have been contributed by humans is what has suddenly caused the globe to warm at a supposedly alarming rate -- not to mention that the entire scare factor is based on a globe that ONLY continues to warm, which ignores the cyclical nature of warming and cooling that is found throughout recorded history.

Ugh. All the billions of dollars of wealth and billions of megawatts of energy and brainpower that are and will be wasted reshaping society and culture to address this make-believe problem really is a shame.


RE: How silly
By superflex on 5/29/2009 3:31:32 PM , Rating: 3
What else would you expect from Mick?


RE: How silly
By descendency on 5/30/2009 12:24:26 PM , Rating: 3
Those corrupt businesses feed and clothe a lot more than are dying in Africa because of whatever problem they have.

It's easy to sit back on a 500+$ computer in a decent house using the internet to say that corporations are evil, but without those "evil corporations" you'd be in the same boat. Not only do they pay salaries of parents or yourself but they also provided services like house building, internet, and computer part manufacturing.

Shame on those corrupt business owners making a profit!


I could be wrong...
By kamel5547 on 5/29/2009 1:34:06 PM , Rating: 4
But I thought most deaths from hunger were due to:
a) Oppressive governments (see North Korea)
b) War or other combat (see various parts of Africa)
c) Poverty (see much of the third world)

Almost the exact same scenarios apply to disease, although I would be interested in seeing how global warming has replaced these other causes. Unfortunately I have my doubts since it seems the world has suffered from starvation and disease for quite some time now....




RE: I could be wrong...
By DigitalFreak on 5/29/2009 1:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
d)Lack of population control in parts of the world (ie: Africa) that can't sustain those numbers of people.


RE: I could be wrong...
By aegisofrime on 5/29/2009 2:21:18 PM , Rating: 3
E)Corruption

There must be a reason why most of Africa is still suffering from poverty and starvation despite the billions of dollars of aid pouring into it.


RE: I could be wrong...
By TomZ on 5/29/2009 2:28:50 PM , Rating: 3
(F) AIDS epidemic.

quote:
Sub-Saharan Africa is more heavily affected by HIV and AIDS than any other region of the world. An estimated 22 million people were living with HIV at the end of 2007 and approximately 1.9 million additional people were infected with HIV during that year. In just the past year, the AIDS epidemic in Africa has claimed the lives of an estimated 1.5 million people in this region. More than eleven million children have been orphaned by AIDS.

http://www.avert.org/aafrica.htm

Also note 1500000 > 315000. And the 1.5 million dead each year is a real statistic, not some extrapolation from a worst-case set of assumptions.


Articles like this...
By lightfoot on 5/29/2009 7:01:59 PM , Rating: 4
...make me miss M. Asher.

His science to offset J. Mick's church.

The sky is falling!!!




RE: Articles like this...
By reader1 on 5/29/2009 8:24:30 PM , Rating: 1
Michael Asher, 12/30/08

quote:
Some pundits are calling 2008 the year global warming was disproven. I prefer to call it the year science triumphed over alarmism.


http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13816

LOL


RE: Articles like this...
By marsbound2024 on 5/30/2009 8:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
What ever happened to him anyways? Never see him post on here anymore. Despite past disagreements with him, I enjoyed reading his articles and most of his commentary.


RE: Articles like this...
By sdsdv10 on 5/31/2009 9:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder too? He last commented on February 18th, 2009

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=14305...


Get real.
By General Disturbance on 5/29/2009 1:49:20 PM , Rating: 5
We need anew campaign called "GET REAL!".
A model-predicted one degree C change in a century is a change of 0.01 degrees per year, and this is what is making our weather more scary and crazy and dangerous? When in fact it is scientific proof that the frequency and strength of storms and weather systems has remained absolutely within historical observational bounds.

I'm sorry but the debate on CO2 and AGW does have to open here.

Consider: 1) We have all seen Al Gore's chart that shows that CO2 and temperature are correlated. 2) Humans are currently increasing by a tiny amount the level of CO2 in the air due to energy production.

Then let me ask: what caused the historical changes in CO2 concentration, as seen in Gore's plot? Natural causes? What natural causes?

Analysis: 1) If you actually look very closely at the CO2 concentration & temperature plot, temperature appears to RISE FIRST, and THEN CO2 concentration rises. This is backwards to the AGW CO2 theory. Meaning it appears that temperature change CAUSES CO2 concentration changes, not the other way around.
2) The increase of CO2 caused by temperature change is explained by well known oceanographic behaviour, in which the oceans absorb MORE CO2 when the water is cool, and absorb LESS when they are warm. This means that when surface temperature increases, the oceans give off CO2; when surface temperature decreases, the oceans absorb CO2. Hence temperature change CAUSING CO2 change.
3) What then is the CAUSE of the initial temperature change? The well known, well studied, very simple fact that the output of the sun changes.

So what we have is this: on one side we have a theory based mainly on computer models, in which it is thought CO2 change causes temperature change, and these models haven't predicted anything conclusively.
On other side we have a theory based on well known facts of science in which changes in the output of the sun cause changes in surface temperature, which go on to cause changes in CO2 concentration.

What theory is more likely? I don't usually like to appeal to Occam's Razor, but this is one case where after we consider the data and the facts and reach our conclusion, we are left with the more simple theory.

We certainly are changing the concentration of CO2, but it doesn't matter. We need to GET REAL. Get real because 0.01 degrees C change per year is totally unmeasurable and insignificant, and doesn't matter. GET REAL because we have IMMEDIATE and CURRENT environmental issues that are vastly more significant by factors of MILLIONS than this supposed GW. GET REAL because we are all distracted with GW when we should be distracted with real environmental damage caused by REAL pollution (i.e. not CO2) and other damaging processes.

I'm off to go camping for the weekend, so I leave it to the many other truly knowledge-hungry poster's on here to post links to the relevant references.




RE: Get real.
By JediJeb on 5/29/2009 2:54:36 PM , Rating: 2
I posted this same idea last week and was instantly voted down, then back up lol.

But I do believe this idea is more correct than the one that is hyped in the media. Is the temperature warming, sure, are we causing it, very doubtful. One study I saw showed that of all the CO2 being put into the atmosphere per year, we humans generate 0.48% of that. If we cut all human emissions of CO2 in half this year, then there will still be 99.76% of the normal amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere over the year. I would imagine that one volcanic eruption more or less each year changes the total by more than 0.48%.

Also when you look at the trend plots, the trend for increase of CO2 per year remains the same before and after the boom in use of hydrocarbon fuels in the early 20th century.


Who's surprised?
By optarix12 on 5/29/2009 1:38:42 PM , Rating: 4
Mick writing another shock story? Surely you jest...

As for global warming, hasn't there been data that says that over the last hundred years the temperatures have actually trended downwards? I've read we are headed towards an ice-age. Of course then they'd want parka handouts for 3rd world countries...

---Mike




RE: Who's surprised?
By nixoofta on 5/29/2009 8:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe this was what you were thinking of...

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Repo...

Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM

513 comment(s) - last by plowak.. on Mar 14 at 12:01 PM


Thought Processes
By clovell on 5/29/2009 3:26:17 PM , Rating: 5
> That debate aside , a recent study by the Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) sought to answer the third question, looking at the impact of global warming on mankind.

Jason, there are quite a number of people that will argue whether the globe is actually warming at all. In fact, the monicker 'Climate Change' was comissioned to dodge this very question. Which brings me to my next point.

From here on out, I want you Global Warming folks to do me one huge favor - just one - that's all I ask. Please stop equivocating Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming to Climate Change/Global Warming.

It's driving me effing crazy. Because, climate changes - it was sunny outside when I drove in to work this morning, and at lunch, it was overcast. and, guess what else? The globe effing warms! I know! And it cools, too! Quit using logical fallacies to try to slip your cause under the radar using the guise of something everyone accepts (i.e. Climate changes, and/or the Globe warms). It's lame, and I'm sick of it.

Do that, and then I'll do my best to actually consider what you have to say - that is, as long as you're willing to have a discussion rather than an inquisition. Are we cool?

Long-live the Climate-Industrial Complex.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987...




this just
By johnsonx on 5/30/2009 1:04:06 AM , Rating: 5
Newsflash: Report issued by agenda-based group strongly backs agenda upon which the group is based.

No one is surprised.




And...
By PKmjolnir on 5/30/2009 11:09:57 AM , Rating: 3
Approximately 2 million people are killed annually by tuberculosis, mainly in developing countries. 8 million people are infected each year. What do you think the financial losses are from this?

Hell, even the common flu kills half a million people annually.

But of course, Al gore didn't make an inflammatory and misleading movie on the topic so i guess that automagically makes it unimportant.




RE: And...
By GeorgeOu on 5/31/2009 2:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
And colder weather is a huge contributor of TB, flu, and other illnesses. That is a medical fact.


Real dramatic
By HostileEffect on 5/29/2009 1:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
I would suspect every country has its poor, its hungry, and its homeless.




RE: Real dramatic
By plowak on 5/29/2009 2:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
Somebody said, "They will be with us always", but what did he know anyway.

</sarcasm>


$125B
By cscpianoman on 5/29/2009 2:02:53 PM , Rating: 4
You mean it takes $125 billion to keep up the farce.




Oh the Kofi irony...
By Nfarce on 5/29/2009 5:50:47 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Kofi Annan, former U.N. secretary-general and GHF president states, "Climate change is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time, causing suffering to hundreds of millions of people worldwide."


Is this the same man who sits by and does nothing while African warlords (and dictators) starve their people to death? Just curious...




B U L L S H I T
By johnsonx on 5/30/2009 12:57:33 AM , Rating: 4
B
U
L
L
S
H
I
T

in it's purest, undiluted form.




whats new?
By meepstone on 5/29/2009 1:29:52 PM , Rating: 3
Nature killing animals, nothing to see here people. happens everyday.




so
By tehbiz on 5/29/2009 2:44:34 PM , Rating: 3
natural selection, go science.




Oh boy not again
By sxr7171 on 5/30/2009 2:02:42 AM , Rating: 3
Well this global warming business is BS, plain and simple. Tracking global temperatures is like tracking the stock market only we get data points once a year instead of once a day.

Rather these are changes that would require decades of data to find any possible pattern and then to attribute those changes to our human activities is arrogant at best. Ice ages and meltdowns have happened before we arrived. Really we just give ourselves far too much credit.

However, there is a cost to our fossil fuel burning ways and it is in terms of health and healthcare costs. There is no denying that breathing in polluted air does take a toll on the health of the general population.

But this ice cap melting crap story they give us is absurd.




Global Warming is a Murderer...
By bplewis24 on 5/29/2009 1:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
It should be arrested and put behind bars.

Brandon




perspective
By RU482 on 5/29/2009 1:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
in the grand scheme of things, the common cold probably kills just as many people, and costs way more




If Only....
By 67STANG on 5/29/2009 1:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
we can stop Earth's natural, variable, angular rotation, in relation to the Sun's orbit.... I know, lets cut carbon emissions. That'll do it. Please, enough FUD.




Unbiased for sure!
By spkay on 5/29/2009 1:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
Kofi Annan has no political axe to grind ;-) Just like Al Gore - heheheh.




Special Report:
By acase on 5/29/2009 1:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
The Easter Bunny just murdered Santa Claus with Cupid's bow and arrow!




So what's your take on it Mick?
By Regs on 5/29/2009 1:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's a blog, so blog away!




All I wanna know...
By IcePickFreak on 5/29/2009 2:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
I drive a ridiculously selfish V8 car, am I going to be charged with murder?

I better get me a hybrid emblem and plaster it on the trunk just to be safe.




Not so bad compared to...
By Beenthere on 5/29/2009 2:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
...the damage Bama does weekly with failed economic policies. The human devatation in the U.S. will last for decades.




By mattclary on 5/29/2009 2:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
...with links to sources. This is good for lolz

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm




By bubbastrangelove on 5/29/2009 3:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
Report: Global Warming Kills 315,000 People

In my best Archie Bunker Voice: "Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"




oh well
By itzmec on 5/29/2009 3:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
People have to die somehow, may as well be from global warming. or climate change, whatever you want to call it. climate change has been around for billions of years, right? So what seems to be the problem here?
There are people dying everyday, in our own back yards, from violence, and starvation and so on. This we can control. These idiots think they can save lives by controlling the climate of the earth? I'm amazed at the stupidity.
So this tells me that it isnt about saving lives, its about something else, because no one is that stupid.




Problem solves itself
By corduroygt on 5/29/2009 3:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Global Warming" and "CO2" problem solves itself by killing "300000" humans, who are net CO2 producers...So problem solved!

By the way, last night I was idling my 6 litre V8 at McDonalds drive thru while waiting for my Big Mac and Double Quarter Pounder. Anyone trying to take that freedom away from me will be stopped by multiple supersonic projectiles that are 9mm (One of the few inroads the metric system made here) in diameter.




By jimbojimbo on 5/29/2009 4:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why in the world would they instead post an article like "World is Perfect. We are No Longer Seeking Funds"?? Of course they'll post articles that would do the most good! Their PR rep would be canned in an instant otherwise.

On a side note, I'm starting a business to help people bitten by rats because rat bites killed 1 billion people last year and expected to grow to 1 trillion by 2011. Please send me money.




Most Comments Ever?
By lukasbradley on 5/29/2009 4:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
This might hit the most comments on a DT article ever.

What's the record now?




By ThePooBurner on 5/29/2009 4:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The report also found that nine tenths of the human and economic losses from global warming are borne by developing nations . Meanwhile, the 50 poorest countries only contribute 1 percent of emissions. He says 500 million people, living in poverty worldwide, are particularly vulnerable, as they live in locations extremely vulnerable to droughts, floods, storms, sea-level rise and creeping deserts caused by climate changes .


Did it ever occur to anyone that these are still "developing nations" due to the fact that they are arid wastelands? That no one has ever wanted to move there and develop them because doing so would be a stupid waste of resources? Keep in mind that some of these "nations" are only about the size of the mohave desert or the wastes of nevada. Should we be concerned over the lack of development on those areas? If the answer is no for those 2 locals then it should likewise be no for the other locations of similar climate.

Also, the earth changes. Climates change naturally. Some live in areas that seem to be fine most of the time and then WHAM tornado, hurricane, earthquake, flood, the climate suddenly changes. Improved tech and developed status did little to save new orleans, it would likewise do little to save a waste in the middle of no where. If people are going to spend money to try and save lives how about you just move everyone to a place that isn't such a hell hole? Let alone "improving" areas that have always been unpredictable hell holes.




The real problem
By karkas on 5/29/2009 7:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
The real problem and sleight-of-hand associated with most studies of this nature is that they very carefully and methodically collect mountains of data such as case reports, demographic & mortality data then add it up. This often amounts to 95+% of the study and provides the backbone of its credibility.

But...

Then they multiply the "good" data by the BS factor. The factor which is often a complete guess such as the % of these deaths which are completely attributable to GW. This figure has the greatest impact on the output of the conclusion, but also has the weakest supporting data.

Of course "most" of the study is based on good data and the media stooges gleefully trumpet the conclusion so that they have a concrete number to cite. The politicians can then use this number as a spear point to ram their agendas much further.

And if you disagree with their talking points they will deceptively concede that "most" of the data is unassailable.

OFF TOPIC: Where has Michael Asher vanished to?




US off the Hook
By LostInLine on 5/29/2009 7:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam in Britain and a GHF board member, chimes in stating, "Funding from rich countries to help the poor and vulnerable adapt to climate change is not even 1 percent of what is needed. This glaring injustice must be addressed at Copenhagen in December."

Well that's good news for the US. We are not rich anymore. We are $547K USD in debt per household. And, China says we can't print any more money or they'll cash out their debt. So we're off the hook for this expense.

Oh, BTW, where is Maurice Strong in all this?




Global warming???
By croc on 5/29/2009 9:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I will not live long enough to see the outcome of this issue, so why should I care? Same with Gm foods... Why waste money on seed banks to preserve species of plants? I'll not live long enough to see them used. Climate? If my wee island hut gets flooded, I'll just move to a larger island, and build higher. That'll last me the rest of my lifetime, so why should I care? No fish nearby? I guess I'll just have to raise pigs. Nothing for the pigs to eat? Well, then I guess that is a good day to die.

Mayan civilisation... Ankor Wat... Easter Island... As long as I get my next quarter's dividends, I'll be right, mate.




By Kahnivorous on 5/30/2009 1:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
*Sigh* Come on DT. You can do better than this...I hope.

It's all about money. Nothing changes.




No
By xxsk8er101xx on 5/30/2009 2:37:53 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but whenever someone pulls out a number like this it just wreaks bullshit. It's fear mongering nothing more.

The science of global warming is being questioned as the global mean temperature continues to drop.




solved!
By GlassHouse69 on 5/30/2009 10:43:26 AM , Rating: 2
Overpopulation and me driving my sports car, a symbiotic relationship!

problem solved!




Never...
By BailoutBenny on 5/30/2009 12:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
let a serious crisis go to waste - Rahm Emanuel.

Those who are truly interested about the political machinations behind some of this stuff should read "The Report from Iron Mountain." I would say that, though many have denounced it as conspiracy theory nonsense, given current events it is highly illuminating if not downright worrisome. Just my 2 cents.




Cause of deaths
By hemmy on 5/30/2009 12:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
Environmentalists are the real cause of death in poor nations. They convince them to refuse millions of tons of donated food because it is "genetically modified". That, and the fact that the people eat the seeds we give them instead of planting them and turning them into food.




Please Title Articles Better
By mindless1 on 5/30/2009 4:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
Title should not be "Global Warming Kills", it should be "Climate Change Kills"




Sweet Pay Raise
By makius on 5/30/2009 5:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He says funds to combat climate change will have to rise from the current level of $400M USD annually to an estimated $32B USD annually.


Hmm.... I'd say Mr Annan is vying for that christams bonus this year.




By GeorgeOu on 5/31/2009 2:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
How many people would die from Global cooling? Oh yeah, we already know that. Global cooling from the "little ice age" probably had an order of magnitude higher impact on health and mortality. Also, the flu probably kills way more people that this particular estimate, and colder weather means more flu and sickness.

It's also interesting that the scare mongers have already stopped using the word "global warming" and changed to "climate change" since that covers them either way. The earth has already stopped warming this decade.




Warming can't be a problem
By Jalek on 5/31/2009 5:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
If it were, instead of "solutions" that might make a .002 degree difference over 50 years, why not go with what's proven? Induce volcanic eruptions. Mt Pinatabu erupted several years ago and had a nearly immediate 2 degree global drop in temperatures.

High altitude ash dispersal is what we need, not an abrupt change to current civilization and an end to progress as we all learn to not drive or use electricity and get back to our bug-eating, cave-dwelling roots.

Other nations talk about CO2 and immediately plan for nuclear plants. The US talks about it and tries to stop industry and recreation. Who's the idiot?




psshhh
By rodrigu3 on 6/1/2009 2:09:36 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming doesn't kill people, people kill people.




One step in the solution...
By Suntan on 6/2/2009 1:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
Look at all those little CO2 exhalers standing there with their hands out, creating so much CO2...

...I say we kill two birds with one stone (pun intended.)

-Suntan




The debate is over.
By reader1 on 5/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: The debate is over.
By Schrag4 on 5/29/2009 1:30:22 PM , Rating: 5
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess Jim's best financial interest to pretend it's a problem. It appears from a quick glance at the website for Duke Energy that they have 'Green' offerings (no doubt they cost a pretty penny).

If you can't beat'em, join'em, right? Smart move. Dishonest, in my opinion, but smart.


RE: The debate is over.
By TomZ on 5/29/2009 1:43:24 PM , Rating: 5
I agree - existing energy players benefit in at least two ways:

1. Keeping the cost of conventional energy high, due to a public (mis-)perception of scarcity

2. Bringing to market even more profitable "green" energy sources

These guys are several steps ahead of the generally dumb politicians and general public.

High energy costs are poison to our economy and standard of living.


RE: The debate is over.
By mcnabney on 5/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: The debate is over.
By TomZ on 5/29/2009 2:17:39 PM , Rating: 4
Russia has a 7% GDP growth rate, Venezuala 8.4%, and Europe is flat. Thanks for helping me to prove my point.


RE: The debate is over.
By spkay on 5/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: The debate is over.
By reader1 on 5/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: The debate is over.
By Nfarce on 5/30/2009 11:34:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lot of people sit around and whine


You mean people like you mindless hysterical ALgorebots?


RE: The debate is over.
By mkrech on 6/1/2009 4:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
Reader1, since it appears that you base your belief on consensus and not actual science, here is some "consensus" that shows your opinion is not respected.

Reader1 average comment rating of 0.36
http://www.dailytech.com/CommentUser.aspx?user=240...

compared to other individuals whose opinions are more respected

masher2 - 2.31 average comment rating
http://www.dailytech.com/CommentUser.aspx?user=194...
FITCamaro - 2.07 average comment rating
http://www.dailytech.com/CommentUser.aspx?user=212...
TomZ - 2.03 average comment rating
http://www.dailytech.com/CommentUser.aspx?user=202...
mindless1 - 2.00 average comment rating
http://www.dailytech.com/CommentUser.aspx?user=718...

I believe there is a reason that their posts are generally more respected, and since they have a higher average comment rating, they are right and you are wrong.

I hope this helps you understand. :)


RE: The debate is over.
By meepstone on 5/29/2009 1:39:55 PM , Rating: 5
How is global warming a problem? its nature, the cycle of the planet.

as for gore, the worst person to get a nobel peace prize. not only did this just make the nobel peace prize a pile a junk in my opinion but the information is fabricated to prove his point.

quote:
Game, set, match, winner: Gore.
-for tricking morons(which isnt hard).


RE: The debate is over.
By invidious on 5/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: The debate is over.
By InfantryRocks on 5/30/2009 8:26:51 AM , Rating: 3
Preceding Al Gore was Yassir Arafat for the Nobel Peace Prize. That established the Nobel Prize as crap, Algore receiving it merely cemented that fact.


RE: The debate is over.
By clovell on 5/29/2009 3:30:20 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, sir - welcome to the Climate-Industrial Complex.


RE: The debate is over.
By FPP on 5/29/2009 5:05:40 PM , Rating: 4
...not hardly.

Run to these 50 nations and see what their poverty, mortality rate, etc., was 50 years ago and then ask why it is NOW due to global warming...


RE: The debate is over.
By StoveMeister on 5/30/2009 7:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
Look at those nations 50 years ago and compare them to today and you'll see that population pressure and corruption and war are killing way more than even the invented figures here. Wonder how many deaths in Darfur are being accredited to GW in this study?


RE: The debate is over.
By clovell on 5/31/2009 2:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
I actually meant to reply to the second post, not the OP... not sure how that happened.... =/


RE: The debate is over.
By Nfarce on 5/30/2009 11:32:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Game, set, match, winner: Gore.


Not on this planet, you mindless ALgorebot jackass.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki