To all you nuts who don't believe in Global Warming.

[Call_Me_Daddy]

UN attacks climate change as threat to peace

UNITED NATIONS, New York: The United Nations Security Council on Tuesday debated the impact of climate change on conflicts around the world, brushing aside objections from developing countries that global warming is not an issue of international peace and security.

Britain, which holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council, organized the open session to highlight what its foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, said was the "security imperative" to tackle climate change because it can worsen problems that cause conflicts and can threaten the entire planet.

"What makes wars start?" she said. "Fights over water; changing patterns of rainfall; fights over food production; land use."

She added: "There are few greater potential threats to our economies, too, but also to peace and security itself."

Beckett continued, "This is a groundbreaking day in the history of the Security Council, the first time ever that we will debate climate change as a matter of international peace and security."

The two major groups representing developing countries - the Nonaligned Movement and the Group of 77 - wrote separate letters accusing the Security Council of "ever-increasing encroachment" on the role and responsibility of other UN entities.

Climate change and energy are issues for the General Assembly, where all 192 UN member states are represented, and the Economic and Social Council, not the Security Council, they said.

Pakistan's deputy ambassador, Farukh Amil, whose country heads the Group of 77, told the council that its debate not only "infringes" on the authority of other UN organs but also "compromises the rights of the general membership of the United Nations."

Beckett, who spent five years as Britain's negotiator on climate change, said she understood the reservations.

"I'm the last person to want to undermine the important work that those bodies do," she said, "but this is an issue that threatens the peace and security of the whole planet, and the Security Council has to be the right place to debate it."

Beckett said Britain was following the precedent of the first Security Council debate on another important global issue: HIV and AIDS in 2000.

"We want to see the same thing happen with climate change, that it comes from the fringes into the mainstream," she said.

Over the past few years, she said, the threat from climate change has grown, and its impact goes far beyond the environment "to the very heart of the security agenda." She cited flooding, disease and famine leading to unprecedented migration; drought and crop failure intensifying competition for food, water and energy; and the potential for economic disruption on a scale not seen since World War II.

On Monday, Beckett noted, top U.S. retired admirals and generals warned in a new report that climate change was a "threat multiplier for instability."

She said Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, whose economy depends on hydropower from a reservoir that is now depleted by drought, has called climate change "an act of aggression by the rich against the poor."

"He is one of the first leaders to see this problem in security terms," Beckett said. "He will not be the last."

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki Moon, told the council that global warming could have not only serious environmental, social and economic effects but also implications for peace and security. "This is especially true in vulnerable regions that face multiple stresses at the same time - pre-existing conflict, poverty and unequal access to resources, weak institutions, food insecurity and incidence of diseases such as HIV/AIDS," he said.

Ban outlined several "alarming" possibilities, including limited or threatened access to energy increasing the risk of conflict, a scarcity of food and water transforming peaceful competition into violence, and floods and droughts polarizing societies and weakening the ability of countries to resolve conflicts peacefully. The world must come together, including governments and the private sector, to prevent these possibilities from becoming reality, he said.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/17/news/climate.php

I guess its not happening after all. Just like AIDS. Its a conspiracy. The doctors and scientists tell you its real, but you know better, right?

So they must be wasting time at the UN. Discussing things like war, AIDS, and now global warming. They're not happening.

 

[MetalFortress]

I'm sitting here, in late April, in sunny SD, freezing my ass off. Bring on the damn global warming already. It's colder than ever for this time of year, right now.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

Global temperature has risen by 3 degrees total.

Its not a huge change. If you ever see tropical weather where you live, that means we're all dead.

Think about it. If nothern Canada reaches a comfy 20 degrees celcius weather year round, how hot is it going to be closer to the equator?

Do you realize what that does to things like air currents, water currents, and ocean life? With a 3 degree increase, we're seeing less and less plankton in the oceans every year. Plankton are the basis for the ENTIRE marine food chain.

So what happens to people who depend on the food chain?



You're net thinking BIG PICTURE.

When you mess around with such a huge system like the earth, tiny changes globally can have drastic effects.

 

[Nighthawk]

To be fair the AIDS pandemic never really happened like they said it would either.

 

[Celadus]

I wouldn't use the UN as a gauge for anything.

 

[ValleyDJing]

^^ I'll second that. Look no further than Rwanda in the early 90's to realize that the UN are all a bunch of dirty, dousch bag, dumbasses.

But seriously...I've seen just as much evidence, and heard just as many scientific/"expert" testimonies (look up "the Great Global Warming Swindel") that disprove the global warming theory. I have no doubt the earth is getting warmer. I just don't think we as human beings are causing it. Not to say we shouldn't do stuff to conserve and protect our planet, but I don't think its worth freaking out and causing national panic over (Thats my opinion only, based on what I've learned about global warming so far).

PS...Al Gore is a hypocritical dips.hit. He's trying to tell us use less energy, yet his one mansion uses like 5 times the amount the of energy that the normal American household uses. I Don't trust him, and I don't trust the UN.

 

[djSlvt]

Who?! Who Dont Believe Global Warming?!

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

I'm not denying the effects of global warming, but you do realise that the Earth's climate is dynamic? Drastic changes will take place with or without our intervention (think Ice Age etc)

Cite your sources.

Until then this is opinion.


I keep going over this again. I provide proof for my opinions, where are yours?

 

[Deep Dish]

I have no doubt global warming is happening, beyond the natural climate cycles, and that it's caused by human activity. Well, see, there ya go, that's one thing I do believe.

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

Cite your sources.

Until then this is opinion.


I keep going over this again. I provide proof for my opinions, where are yours?

Cite your sources. P.S. a newspaper article is not a "source."

For the record, there are many credible sources that dispute global warming as the mainstream try to portray it.

It is a fact that the Earth has cycles within cycles within cycles of weather and has had for as long as Earth has had weather.

No matter what we do we will go through an iceage. We will go through super hot climates.

Greenhouse gases do effect weather. Nobody disputes this. But so does simple physycal properties of the rotation/revolutions of the Earth and it's elliptical orbit. Amongst countless others that we may or may not fully understand.

Global warming attributed to CO2 and other greenhouse gases is found on planets besides Earth. Funny thing is you will find a similar rise in tempurature there.

Here's a little tip. Unless you carry advanced degrees in several fields pertaining to global climates, astronomy, and other physical sciences, the best you can do is form an opinion. Now, if you do nothing but read without question the stuff that sells to the general ignorant public then you can form no contrary opinions and only regergitate the same crap you hear.

Rather than put the burden of proof on others to cite sources why don't you go do research and then come back and refute the opposite opinion of yours?

Now, me personally? I don't give a sh!t. Even the experts who agree on global warming as a potential disaster say it will be 100 years before it gets catastrophic. If crisis can be adverted it will be. Humans beings are very adaptable and everybody in the 1st and 2nd worlds understand the need to not destroy the enviroment.

 

[Michele l'Arcangelo]

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 09/04/2006

---

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

---

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

123

 

[Rata Blanca]

Call Me Daddy:

I've seen you research a lot about global warming...by any chance do you know what HAARP (HIGH FREQUENCY ACTIVE AURORAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ) is?
And do you know if by any chance it's related to global warming?

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program#Research_at_the_HAARP

Haarp.

From what I browsed they research te ionosphere and magnetic fields surrounding the earth and etc..

I haven't seen any references to the global warming from them.

If there are, it could be coming from the sun. Because they indirectly research it. Or rather, the effects of the sun on the uppermost atmosphere.


However, I doubt that the sun could cause such a problem.

But there isn't enough evidence to back this up. Just speculation. I'd stick with the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere as it is logical and there is a good amount of evidence to back up this theory.

 

[PheonixUK]

Actually the Gore household uses 18 times the average amount of power
He defended himself by saying he has extra security needs and he donates money to carbon offset companies... the thing is he OWNS the carbon offset company

I think the Great Global Warming swindle is worth seeing as a counterbalance to the Inconvenient Truth.

I am worried that after this storm blows over then people will be less concerned about genuine environmental issues like unfiltered industrial pollutants.