http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLS1002309

By Megan Rowling

LONDON, May 29 (Reuters) - Climate change kills about 315,000 people a year through hunger, sickness and weather disasters, and the annual death toll is expected to rise to half a million by 2030, a report said on Friday.

The study, commissioned by the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF), estimates that climate change seriously affects 325 million people every year, a number that will more than double in 20 years to 10 percent of the world's population (now about 6.7 billion).

Economic losses due to global warming amount to over $125 billion annually -- more than the flow of aid from rich to poor nations -- and are expected to rise to $340 billion each year by 2030, according to the report.

"Climate change is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time, causing suffering to hundreds of millions of people worldwide," Kofi Annan, former U.N. secretary-general and GHF president, said in a statement.

"The first hit and worst affected are the world's poorest groups, and yet they have done least to cause the problem."

The report says developing countries bear more than nine-tenths of the human and economic burden of climate change, while the 50 poorest countries contribute less than 1 percent of the carbon emissions that are heating up the planet.

Annan urged governments due to meet at U.N. talks in Copenhagen in December to agree on an effective, fair and binding global pact to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, the world's main mechanism for tackling global warming.

In no way should this information be taken as a personal attack on anyone here, however, if you only get one half of a story it is very easy to be misinformed. Please take the time to look over both of these posts. One will refute the silliness of the above claim by Kofi Annan. Don't just read the article. Read the many comments; it's easy to see that many are from scientists and experts in the filed of climatology. The other will put the latest verifiable climate science at your disposal.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/30/u-n-s-global-warming300000-deaths-a-year-report-kofi-implies-close-enough-for-government-work/#more-8091

After reading this information with an open mind. Please watch read this most recent post from wattsupwiththat. If you truly want to understand climate science you can access the complete text of the 800 plus page research text that independent scientists have published in response to the inaccurate and agenda (not a liberal, nor a progressive agenda at all!) driven IPCC report.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/03/a-response-to-the-ipcc/#more-8162. (The video is only a seven minute introduction, but one well worth watching.


Most of us get our information from the mainstream press or the controlled alternative press and sites. We should be wary of those who want us to march in lockstep. Please remember that the people who control big oil, control the press -- now why would they be publishing such seemingly anti-big oil information unless there was a ruse afoot? I will repeat, I am for conservation of natural resources, small footprints and traffic solutions, and absolutely against pollution, but CO2 is not pollution -- unless O2 is pollution. It is a negligible greenhouse gas and man's added input is a negligible amount. Do not lump CO2, a fabulous molecule we can not live without, with smog or other pollutants. They are entirely different entities. By falling for this scam you are condemning future generations to a cold, dark future just the opposite of what you think you are trying do.

Today the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been
overshadowed by taskforces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields.
In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas
and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.
Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a
substitute for intellectual curiosity.

http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/docs-militarycomplexeisenhower1961.htm
at about 2:40 or so, he says it here on video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbUAwCE7JVY

The DOD has defined what are the budgets of finance, much more than private venture
funding - and in this regard, science is entirely biased towards discovering around
the interests of its financiers. Much how the cancer industry rather than seeking
to eliminate cancer, seeks to increase its wallet-share of the medical dollar spend.
We have research in to marketing telling us to make products that break a lot so that
consumers will have to purchase them over and over. This kind of rocket science is
paid research by the nuts behind the capitalist invisible hand.

But isn't the biggest myth of all that there has ever been a free market in the west.
And then, whatever it finances of course supports its military-colonial aims. And as
expected, the researchers of the bubble-culture will constantly develop a new area
of research involving the exploitation of other people - colonizing them to this system
that is arrogantly shrouded inside the petro-dollar mindset.. that we are a necessary
evolution in the history of humankind.

I've heard of a "reservoir," but not a "resevoir."

Just out of curiosity, why do you come over here to PI merely to post anti-global-warming threads? Why are you so focused on convincing people that there is no human-induced climate crisis? You are so focused on that you haven't posted on any other type of thread. Is this a special financial concern to you or something?

Moreover, why do you repeatedly cite Anthony Watts, who repeatedly shows up on rightwing websites, such as Glen Beck's and on townhall.com? Why would progressives on www.progressiveindependent.com want to read the denials of a rightwinger, who does not appear to have any formal education in the sciences?

It would help if you were not so condesending in your replies

Let's see if I can answer your questions. The spelling, after going through registration unsuccessfully a couple of times just ended up that way. Sorry about that. It was a typo/mistake. The word refers to nothing in particular, I just put it in. I used to do sprint triathlons and was always swimming so I often choose water words.

I did not jump to the conclusion that YOU had only gotten half of the story. This is not personal. Al Gore's story is not accepted among the vast majority of climate scientists. I am not trying to be condescending to anyone except those who foisted this trip back to the cave era on Americans and the rest of the world.

The point about Eisenhower is exactly spot on. Eisenhower warned of those trying to control science --I see that as the IPCC. They are attempting to create something that does not exist. "...a government contract becomes virtually a
substitute for intellectual curiosity." D.E.

Anthony Watt,getting on with Glen Beck is hard to explain quickly. This is just my opinion, but why do they let 911 people on ---it's to discredit them with the vast majority of people. It's reverse psychology and you can see that it works. Nonetheless it is the only national news coverage climate scientists with the opposing view get and they are probably grateful to be heard by anyone. Al Gore's father was a big part of big oil. Doesn't that make one feel that there is some trickery involved in this -- like one is being manipulated by big oil in a reverse sort of way? (Didn't the German people voluntarily vote for Hitler? Weren't they guided in their decision by the National Papers? ) The very investors in big oil own the press, yet they are telling the story to the public that says big oil is killing the earth. That seems very fishy to me.

Why do I come to PI? I have read PI for a long time and thought it to be an open minded forum. Why does anyone go to any site? Haven't some here been rebuffed for their opinions on other sites? This has long been one of my favorite sites, I especially enjoyed Klatoo and some others who have come and gone but were open to new ideas when presented with new information. I assure you that other than this topic our views are quite similar.

this is really getting tiresome... :whatever:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm


<snip>

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

Remember the picture of George Washington crossing the Delaware and all the ice floating around his small boat? That type of freezing does not happen any longer. The Thames does not freeze over like it did in the 1600s either. Granted flows are controlled and and have been altered somewhat, but it doesn't occur due to the ending of the Little Ice Age. ( A bleak period except for the Frost Fairs held on the frozen River Thames perhaps.)
Looking back, however, between c. 950 and c.1450 AD there was a natural warm cycle known as the Medieval Warm Period. This warm period was warmer than the current warm period by up to 3C and could not have been been caused by AGW. I have mentioned Greenland before. It was ice-free and was extensively cultivated until c 1425 AD, when the farms were suddenly overrun by permafrost. Most of those settlements remain under permafrost still. The IPCC graph that scared many of us neglected to factor in either the warm period or the cold period, hence it was not an accurate representation, and, not a predictive tool of value.
Everyone is in agreement that beginning in the late 1700s and early 1800s the temperatures began climbing back to normal.
Attempting to discredit meteorologists, while supporting art major Al Gore's thesis seems just a bit over the top. The ecology professor who planted the seed of AGW later decried his own theory. Some of the original signers of the IPCC asked to have their names removed when they realized that the computer modelers did not use accurate data. Al chose to forge on in spite of these retractions. 31,000 scientists signed the petition asking to void the Kyoto Agreements, 9000 of them are Ph.Ds. Some are meteorologists but many are climate scientists or geologists or related fields who would love to debate the AGW side which uses the very successful foil of telling the masses that the debate is over -- this technique is used over and over in many areas (water fluoridation comes to mind) -- avoidance works when the public is only given partial information. Let me quote biologist Nasif Nahle : "If you want to believe in lies, believe in consensus and politicians. Of you want to believe in truth, believe in science and in no-politicized scientists. If you want that your descendants survive to these natural phenomena, teach them to save water and energy, teach them on how to avoid the heat stroke, teach them to reforest from their own gardens. Teach them to be good children of Nature."

I would only add, teach them to deal with all aspects of nature -- hot or cold, because cold, too, does happen and it always brings more misery.

other than rw/denialist sources?

you were speaking to me

who are you speaking of? Not anyone here I would think

However, the mainstream press is not just the major print and broadcast media. It is all the "controlled" alternative press (print and on-line), cable and entertainment media. Most of us do not get our information from actual science sites or actual unbiased news sites. This controlled information can come from the left, right or center, but it is controlled by the same group of power brokers that control the mainstream press. They need to control all sides of all issues to stay in control. Again, my statement was not a personal attack on any one person's news sources. I have no idea where a specific individual gets his information. My purpose is to have those interested read as much from all sides of the issue as possible. My hometown paper prints almost exclusively the AGW side of the story. Even when scientists call or write and complain that there is much more information available, they ignore this input. It's kind of like Bush saying, march all you want, we ignore focus groups. By doing this he effectively kneecapped the antiwar movement. That is why the avoidance technique works so well. I hope this time I have not offended anyone with my apparently less than elegant writing style; the focus should be on the actual science of climatology.

Nobody is going to live poor so that the rest can live american-style;
the catholic church needs to be challenged and shamed with a global
imperative not to increase the load by 3 billion more.

Population is that root driver.

The narratives of kapital suggest that the problem is with Kapital (the planet & our stuff)
and not with labour ( our population).

Or we're going to have to design a new reality TV show with 1000 contestants;
the winner will exit the game with 10 million clams.
the 999 losers all are crushed up and fed to pigs. (republican voters at a picnic)

If we can get lots of people to play the game, hoping to get rich,
they can be coerced to trade their life for a punt out of slavery.

Every climate scientist that disagrees with you and Al is a rw/denialist. (This is just an another example of avoidance -- call names and then refuse to address the actual issue or even the side issue, Al has big time links to big oil.) Here's the a solution: USE YOUR SEARCH ENGINE. The temperature of the earth leveled off in 2000 and began to cool in 2002 (actually it was cooling in the mid-90s when a strong El Nino gave the temps a boost again). That is why global warming had to quickly become global climate change. Can you really be satisfied with them having it both ways? One should check out the data not lash out at it. Here's a data point. Check it out if you think it is incorrect then, if you choose, agree or disagree with the info, just don't call it crap, which is less than unscientific and only causes bad feelings. "Carbon dioxide is less than 00.038% of the atmosphere." Is it?????

82% of the qualified scientists (the experts) believe in a human-behavior-related climate change crisis. Please notice that meteorologists, one of whom you cite, that has had consistent links to the rightwing sites, are only versed in short-term phenomena - their education, if any, was not in long-term phenomena, of which climate change is one.

As to the Gore family owning shares in Oxy, I owned shares in Oxy. It's how I got through college; but, then, that was many years ago. Per Al Gore, the money from his speeches, etc., goes to his nonprofit - he so testified when he was before Congress.

There's simply no question who the villains are here - Exxonmobil (and its cronies) only cares about itself (its shareholders)(its obscene profits). I certainly do not trust any of the so-called "experts" who receive funding from the organizations IT funds, or those who benefit from its conferences or sponsored shows.

As to this site, it is not a site for ANY independents, it is a site for PROGRESSIVE (i.e. leftie) independents.

As to individual sites, we will all have different opinions as to which are "alternative" sites, and which contain the truth. In my view, Watts's site is not one of those.

Moreover, you are wasting your time, here. You certainly aren't going to convince anyone on THIS site to become a climate-change denier (I'd be extremely surprised if you did). You've presented your point-of-view repeatedly. You will eventually tire of doing that, I'm sure. Good luck with convincing people here of the validity of your ideas.

Do you, resevoir, have a financial interest in Energy?

I agree with this statement. "Moreover, you are wasting your time, here. You certainly aren't going to convince anyone on THIS site to become a climate-change denier (I'd be extremely surprised if you did)." (* No one denies climate change, of course the climate changes. I do not believe the facts support man made global warming, or for that matter, now that it is cooler overall, man made climate change.) "You've presented your point-of-view repeatedly. You will eventually tire of doing that, I'm sure. Good luck with convincing people here of the validity of your ideas." I have not just presented my point of view, I have pointed to the missing facts, and those facts can be found at A. Watts site and MANY OTHERS. Only time will tell who has the more accurate side of this story.

If 31,000 scientists signed a petition against Kyoto, how many signed the pro-petition? I have to think your 82% figure of support is way off. I have agreed with you that big oil acts brutishly, however, I believe big oil is also a part of this ruse. These people are thinking 50 years ahead, keep that in mind.

Al Senior was a major player working with and for Oxy. Al Gore's dad did not just own stock in Oxy nor does Al just profit blindly from those stocks. Junior continues to carry on the tradition, just under cover. He handed over big no-bid contracts to Oxy in Bakersfield, CA. He voted for Gulf War I, one of only 10 Democrats to do so. Non-profits and charitable foundations can be a very sneaky way to do business. You control the foundation -- like the Rockefellers control theirs and the Gates family will control theirs. Gore has lied before Congress and the American people time after time. The fact he has well paid lawyers who will be able to cover his back with a plausible deniabilty defense is another useful and very common tactic. (Al was tricked by evil scientists trying to push Americans back to pre-industrial times.)

If progressive can be only defined as leftist, then I do apologize I did make a terrible mistake in coming here. The greatest good for the greatest number is not always accomplished by blindly following someone's dictates rather than seeking the best solution. I thought progressive meant open minded and truth seeking, not blindly following a leftie leader, who may actually be the righty leader, too. I do not believe in the phony left-right dichotomy invented to have good people at each others' throats while the puppet masters loot morning, noon and night. There were people here at one time that recognized global warming was a ruse. Were they were run off, too?

Here is the position of the Progressive Democrats of America regarding global warming, or climate change.

http://pdamerica.org/iot/iotpage.php?page=Stop%20Global%20Warming/Environmental%20Issues

Here is more information:
http://www.globalprogressiveforum.org/article/climate-change

Most people here at this site have adopted positions that agree with the positions of the sites listed above. As you only post regarding climate change, and I seriously doubt anyone here agrees with your position, or will in the foreseeable future, I'm not sure why you persist.

By the Gore's ownership, or participation in, Oxy has absolutely no relationship with his benefitting financially from advocating for curtailment of human-induced ecological disaster. Your conspiracy theory makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm done playing; I'm going to ignore your posts. You always refer to the Watts website, and he is merely a meteorologist who has looked at short-term patterns (weather). He is no expert in climate (long-term effects and patterns). Thus, his data is pure crud, as far as I'm concerned.

there even was a Progressive Democratic Party -- really. I took the words progressive independent literally. Forward thinking people who were independent of any parties. So you are correct, I certainly don't belong here. I believe in being open minded and when new information becomes available I do my best to evaluate the facts and theories not emotions generated by loyalty to parties be they right, left or center. The fact that Watt is "merely" a meteorologist puts him head and shoulders above the likes of Al Gore, computer modelers (junk in- junk out) and social scientists who have a very mean-spirited agenda, couched in feel-good language, but, in fact, totalitarian. Watts, a man I only have read for the past month, links to many different sites and posts articles written by a myriad number of scientists, from various fields, so the site certainly isn't "merely" all about him.
I apologize to any who may have endured/enjoyed this little drama that never had to be, and since, according to MAAT, most are unquestioningly in agreement with AGW theory that's 100% of you. Nonetheless,I do think if AGW policies are enacted, your energy bills will soar, your power sources will be sporadic and not one thing will be done to end pollution, the real evil problem. See, Al will be profiting from the carbon trading scheme (as he and his family have profited from Big OIl for years) which will allow the big industrial polluters to keep on doing their thing because they purchased some farmer's credits. (Of course, conspiracies never happen and this can never be.) Meanwhile the climate will do whatever the heck it is going to do no matter how much money is sucked out of your pockets and into theirs.
After three years of readership, I must part company with a (just discovered) philosophy built on a hoax - plus my playmates had to/wanted to go home. I can only cap off our farewell to arms with this tidbit about, what else, the polar caps. (Yes, it is more "crap" from a scientist, but the data is from the public record plus it is only seven minutes of truth to endure. (On a personal level, and I really mean this, I wish you all the best!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8SGs_gnFk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwiththat.com%2F2009%2F05%2F31%2Farctic-sea-ice-time-lapse-from-1978-to-2009-using-nsidc-data%2F&feature=player_embedded

That's the question I asked you.

Also, do your sources (e.g. Anthony Watts) have any financial connection with Big Energy or Big Oil?

I do not have any such connection.

Good wishes to you also; I'm sure that, if you keep trying, you will convince someone that Anthony Watts is the guy to whom they should listen. Again, it won't be me, and I doubt that it will be anyone here; but, good luck at that.

Bye.

The right is not always wrong and even tho a lot of the left knows the gov't lies
and steals elections they can't grasp that the agenda 21 is at work and
global warming is but a way to enact a world system of tax and control.
I hate that all the environmentally conscious people are being used to
enable the new world order-
two articles

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11534

http://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/america-and-the-worlds-death-knell-the-green-campaign/

Why is my connection (NOT --none zip, nada) so important and Al's millions of dollars one brushed off as insignificant? I have spoken against Big Oil (Oxy is one) in most posts. Watts' connections, whatever they may be, mean nothing if he speaks the truth. Go to his website and ask him.

Don't forget, the play is over. You called it off. I came with information -- glacial ablation in response to melting glaciers and you dissed the source and me instead of addressing the natural phenomenon . No science was acknowledged rather it served as an excuse to malign the scientist. The messenger is shot, but the message, for the sake of future generations must survive.

See the following post -- others have looked at both sides of the issue and not fallen in lockstep. (Thanks for reading the info.) Your good will is being used against your fellow man, but after awhile willful ignorance is no longer an excuse.

It is easily discernible that you are an intelligent woman. We agree on most topics. I even serve quinoa often. I like the red variety. Like your hero, I often turn the other cheek. I speak against your position, not you, whom, like Anthony, I do not know, but there are over 31,000 Anthonies, silenced by the omissions of the press, trying to be heard! He doesn't want your grand kids living in the dark.

*I pulled my password out of the waste basket --this time I will shred it -- for everyone's sake.

I said that I owned Oxy stock as a kid; that was over 3 decades ago.

Good luck.

I have flown probably about a million air miles.

My mother worked for occidental when i was a kid.

I use an oil fueled boiler because "its there" and it costs more
to change it than to use it.

I use a petro-car and have driven about 2 million miles in my life so far;
this over the wreckage of so many vehicles i've lost count.

And my dog has travelled thousands of miles by air.

And i like my wine from chile, and my fresh blueberries from Argentina;
my tea from ceylon and my oak doors from brazil. I pilliage the third
world to live, and i inject the global transport system on a weekly basis
as i check-in at the local shopping mall where we worship our consumption.

But, alas, after consuming like an american for too damn long,
what but can thousand lifetimes as a bushman can fix?

Is there a progressive system to recover from it all? Perhaps, but only
after the ending of the greatest evil of our day, the american federal and
its corporate empire of corrupt tentacles... and the military behemoth that
strangles the good people of the earth to death to support its legitimacy.

I, like all americans, am obliged to pay US taxes for being utterly debased,
ripped off, hated, war'red on and otherwise assaulted and attacked. This is
perhaps my worse crime - of just pretending that another year of that game
would lead to an evolution for anyone but myself. I have paid for evil,
my life has been evil in that it has been at enormous cost.

Its been worth it for me... but probably not for you.

That's probably true for many of us... perhaps death will sort us all out.

Sitting out by fire today
am i an eco- terrist?

If we can't sit out by the fire now and again, then life is pointless!

You are not wasting anything; you are enjoying life to the fullest then!

:hug:

It's a knee-jerk "If I have to give up my monster truck and my trophy house, I'll be nothing" syndrome.

They don't care about tyranny. They LIKE tyranny in most instances. It's only when someone tries to tell them that they're being selfish assholes that they suddenly care about civil liberties.

Every time a new light rail line was built in Portland, there was a chorus of right-wingers talking about "environmental Nazis trying to force us to give up our cars."

And I (and most likely the majority of Portlanders, who kept voting in pro-transit people 2 to 1) thought, "No, idiot, we're tired of your kind forcing us to sit in traffic on the Banfield (=I-84) when we could be zooming along, reading a book on the train."

There are indeed ways a less wasteful life could be more pleasant. Imagine quieter and less polluted cities, more convenient neighborhoods, more face time with one's fellow human beings, greater freedom for children to come and go without being strapped into a car seat.

But if all one's pride is tied up in having the biggest cars (one for each person over 16), the biggest lawn, and the most wide-screen TVs in the house, then environmentalism seems like tyranny.