"And if we don't manage to sell the firewood in the morning, we will have to stay in the market all day and it stops me from going to school," Melkam said.
The report argues that existing programs aimed at helping countries deal with climate change don't deal directly with gender issues, and maintains that global financing mechanisms need to specifically address the rights of girls.
The authors wrote: "Climate change and gender must not be seen in isolation, but should be addressed across all government departments -- including education and finance ministries."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentSame old, same old...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"United States actions will do absolutely nothing to prevent the climate from changing to any significant degree and adapting to a slightly warmer world will be necessary."
PROOF, pokey, I want the PROOF! And nothing but the PROOF!
Since CO2 traps heat, then even preventing 1 molecule of it going into the atmosphere will do more than "absolutely nothing" to keep the climate from changing. You are partially right though that we will have to adapt to a warmer world, but since you don't quantify what you mean by "slightly", I can't determine if we agree totally on this point.
"Until technology changes countries will continue to emit CO2 and other gasses such as aerosols."
The technology HAS already changed! Why are we still using coal boilers with technology designed in the 19th century when we KNOW they release mercury, soot, NOX, ozone, acid gas, CO2, etc.? AND we have to blow the tops off of mountains to get the fuel while putting ourselves at risk of a waste pond rupturing like what happened in Tennessee a couple years ago. It's all just laziness and greed that keeps these dirty coal plants in operation. The power plant owners and the politicians that are bought off by their campaign contributions and other favors are equally culpable here.
"It is not the job of Americans to worry about the rest of the world to the detriment of our own citizens."
Well, what happens when Bangladesh is partially flooded and an even greater portion of their farmland is unusable due to salt water infiltration? The people will undoubtedly migrate to neighboring countries, destabilizing them and leave behind a poorer and more hungry country than before. Or what if Pakistan gets totally destabilized by more floods like the ones it suffered through recently? They have nuclear weapons, you know. How much of a detriment to U.S. citizens will that be if one of them gets loose and how much will THAT cost? Don't know? Me neither, but it's probably a lot less than shutting down the world's old, dirty and inefficient coal plants and agreeing to lower our total emissions over the next few decades.
And we don't improve our emissions largely due to corruption in our system. So I am afraid your point escapes me. The original poster was interested in trying to mitigate the possible effects political stability would have on American society. You seem more interested in assigning blame, but unfortunately, even if it is 100% the fault of terrorists (which it is), that still doesn't mean that we shouldn't work hard to avoid harm to ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd that, pokerplyer, is exactly why americans are disliked the world around. You are so self-centered that you will always find an excuse not to help others (not even those who are starving in your own country). Yet most americans call themselves 'deeply religious', how hypocritical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour economic system is a mess, your educational system is a mess and you don't even care enough about each others to create a proper healthcare system. Most women is the US don't even get a real maternity leave to care for their babies, how barbaric. Hopefully your president will change that, although with so many ignorant and self-centered religious-right politicians and people, I have little hope for you. When Katrina hit, I helped, not because I am american, but because I care. When the earthquake hit Haiti and Japan, I helped too. And I am proud that my country send money abroad in all these instances.
It is a sad comment on our species that someone would advocate not helping a dying or suffering child anywhere in the world. I hope your children go to school (probably private) and eat well everyday. I mainly hope they grow up to be more humane than you, so that society can finally evolve. “The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look at it without doing anything”, Albert Einstein.
The good news is that most of the educated world cares about its children. We'll just have to wait for americans to evolve.
Sault, I proof of a negative is impossible. You are the one who needs to supply proof there is human caused climate change and the method is somehow magically a natural molecule called CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow for some actual reason. Nothing the United States does will change anything. Even using your completely bogus dogma that the Evil CO2 in your flawed computer models somehow magically cause a greenhouse effect, the FACT is the the rest of the world puts out 75% of these so called pollutants. Also, because people like you do not actually include measures from the billion or so people who use wood and coal for cooking and heating in the poorest parts of asia as part of your input, it is likely America is less than 25% of the out put.
But lets say you get your way and the evil America is put down forever, the population wiped out and everyone in America is reduced to stone age subsistence farming, effectively reducing American CO2 out put to Zero(oh yeah, it is a natural substance we all exhale, so I guess Zero is not possible) But lets say Zero anyway, the 75% of the world out put is still there and because they are expanding and growing and have NO effective pollution controls at all, it is likely they will replace the 25% of the American output and then some in a few short years. Logic, sir is all you needed to conclude nothing America does will reduce Global Warming, making the assumption that Global Warming is somehow caused by humans.
Now before you start screaming proof at me, I cant prove humans are not doing something. BUT sir, climate models and statistics, with bizzare concepts like a "global average temperature" and comparing a measly 50 years at best of accurate temperature data on less than 1% of the atmosphere with tree rings of 2000 years ago and ice cores from the last ice age, amounts to nothing at all, except to say Climate Change is natural.
It is easy to see when a theory is bogus, when the backers of the theory have NO conditions that prove it wrong and literally anything that happens, even earthquakes are magically somehow proof. Then you get this butterfly effect nonsense that somehow girls are more affected by climate change. It is nonsense like that that proves the human caused global warming theory is wrong. These girl's are in dire straights because they live in cultures that view women as less than animals. It has nothing to do with global warming. Maybe one day you people will actually show a real physical experiment proving your theory, until then try banning a real pollutant.
Take things out of context for rhetorical purposes much?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCaro, perhaps you have never been to other parts of the world as I have. First most, especially in Asia like Americans. It is only politicians and so called leaders with issues. If you think the American economy is somehow bad, try living in Europe, Japan, South America or some other place and see if you say the same. To say americans are self centered, when we by far help more countries and people than anyone else. Even if you add up everything all other countries do, we still give and help more. So before you start bashing the very people who's money you take to provide even more benevolence, you should ensure you understand America is actually the greatest country on earth, heck even the French President has said that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf America was not here, the world would still be living with slavery everywhere, feudalism, pollution to make today look clean and destitution everywhere and no technology at all.
Back in the revolutionary war a French Major wrote what he thought about how the rest of the world views Americans. Yes, there is nothing new about the rest of the world being different. He noted Americans are willing to set aside traditions and insane cultural differences to work together to invent, produce and take care of themselves and anyone they choose to befriend. The rest of the world is unable even back then to understand how that works. It is not Americans, who need to evolve. The rest of the world has to put aside the cancers of their old world cultures and traditions and catch up to us. It is not America where women are treated as less than cattle, It is not America where Slavery Still exists, it is not america where babies are exposed to die for having the wrong gender, it is not America where food and jobs are distributed by thugs, tyrants and megalomaniacs. It is certainly not america where some upper class gets advantages based on their birth, status or position(excepting of course american politicians). You are insane if you believe we need to devolve back to the insanity of Euro or Asian governments of oppression and Socialism. If you really want the entire world to be a better place, then the world needs to evolve to where America is now and then everyone needs to evolve to better.
This is the exact problems with this debate. People like you create strawman arguments saying that people who are concerned about climate change really only want to destroy the USA. Really? I KNOW where you get this stuff; I've heard the toxic rhetoric coming from right wing radio or Faux News.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou blatantly ignore proven scientific facts like CO2's absorption spectrum, its 40% increase in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times and the falling pH of the world's oceans. You are able to dismiss mountains of data and scientific evidence with the smarmy words of hucksters that are mostly paid by the fossil fuel companies to spread unfounded doubt.
You say, "climate models and statistics, with bizzare concepts like a "global average temperature" and comparing a measly 50 years at best of accurate temperature data on less than 1% of the atmosphere with tree rings of 2000 years ago and ice cores from the last ice age, amounts to nothing at all..."
We actually have about 120 years of temperature readings over a lot of land area and some ocean. And that's surface temperatures, i.e., the only ones that really matter. Saying that this is only 1% of the atmosphere is naive at best. We have satellite measurements over the whole atmosphere for about 35 years or so and these measurements confirm all the testable predictions of Anthropogenic Climate Change. If the stratosphere was warming faster than the troposphere, if days were warming faster than nights, if the tropics were warming faster than the poles, if record high temperatures were being reported at the same rate as record low temperatures, if the incidence and impact of climate-influenced disasters like hurricanes / wildfires / floods / droughts were holding steady, the theory that man-made CO2 emissions were changing the climate would be called into question. That none of these things are true means that AGW Theory has made testable predictions that have come true and its predictions of the future should be heeded.
Wow, I can hardly keep up with the misinformation you spout off...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If America was not here, the world would still be living with slavery everywhere, feudalism, pollution to make today look clean and destitution everywhere and no technology at all."
Ummm...America was one of the last developed countries to get rid of slavery and Feudalism had pretty much died by the 1700s anyway. I know reading history books is hard; they have a lot of words that make your brain hurt and a lot of times, those elitist historians publish facts that go against your preconceived dogma, but give it a try.
"If you think the American economy is somehow bad, try living in Europe, Japan, South America or some other place and see if you say the same."
First of all, Europe (Western anyway) and Japan are developed while South America has only developing countries so you're mixing up your comparisons. People in Western Europe and Japan have significantly longer lifespans than Americans while spending a fraction of the money we do on healthcare. Couldn't be all that Socialized Medicine, could it? I know you'll blab on about some anecdote you heard from somewhere saying that some guy had to wait 6 months to get a cast for a broken leg. Yeah, their system is not perfect, but care is rationed over here too. Insurance companies employ people full-time who are experts at denying claims. These people actually get bonuses if they deny enough treatment to people who have paid for the coverage they are being denied. How many little horror stories could I bring up about people not getting the treatment they need because of some insurance company bureaucrat standing between them and their doctor?
"The rest of the world has to put aside the cancers of their old world cultures and traditions and catch up to us."
This is true if the rest of the world wanted to decrease their life expectancy while increasing their obesity rates. This would also be true if the other countries wanted to spend more on healthcare and increase their per capita carbon emissions. But since the rest of the world is moving the other way, you are just about as wrong as wrong can be.
Actually, nuclear power plants are required to go through a necessary review period to minimize the risk of safety incidents that could occur over their 40 - 80-year design life. In light of Fukushima and the shortcomings identified in the U.S. nuclear industry's safety and security plans, it's a good thing the NRC isn't too chummy with the industry and still runs somewhat of a tight ship when issuing construction and operating licenses. The true issue with nuclear power is that their costs are much higher than efficiency, conservation, renewable energy and natural gas plants. The approval and construction process can take over 10 years, making cost overruns almost a certainty. Since the consequences of a nuclear accident are unthinkable, the reactors must be designed to handle every imaginable (and sometimes unimaginable i.e., 40-foot tsunami) threat and that costs money. So unless you can point to some instances where "emotion" stopped a reactor from being built, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say, "America does not lower its emissions for a variety of reasons. The major reasons are either because it would be very expensive to do so, and there is little evidence to demonstrate that the expense is worth the effort; or due to prejudiced views regarding the steps that could be taken."
Please provide proof for all three of these statements. The highest credible estimate for the cost of cap-and-trade legislation was $270 PER YEAR for the average household. The bottom 50% of income earners would have actually come out ahead because of energy assistance and efficiency programs in the legislation. How was a cap-and-trade program prejudiced? This program would have let the free market decide on and enact the cheapest emissions reductions. Now that congress punted, the EPA has to step in and mandate emissions reductions because the Supreme Court instructed them to. Yes, the same bunch of liberal wackos that thought unlimited corporate money in elections was a GOOD thing has told the EPA they HAVE to regulate carbon emissions.
Wow Sault are you off base. There IS STILL SLAVERY in many African Arab countries. So America was not one of the Last. Japan, was a closed feudal society until barely 100 years ago. They were forced open and yeah in 30 years they want from a closed non-technical society to attempting to kill millions in WWII, not bad for 30 or so years but it was not because they invented anything. I have actually lived in the places I mentioned, they are great but to sit there and claim they somehow do it better than America is just plain stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should try reading actual history and not the rewritten history of leftist socialists. Feudalism is still occurring in parts of the world. The fact still is, if America had not come on the stage, we would still be living in the 14th to 17th centuries because the rest of the world would have continued their various tyrannies instead of trying to keep up with America.
Again, I suggest you live in a few of these places, where pollution is 10 times what America is(not your imaginary stats, where subsistence living is always in harmony) and go ahead and ask a person in Bangladesh or Bolivia how wonderful life is. Lets bring back those old world traditions where you invade and conquer and genocide anyone not like you and turn entire populations into indentured servants for the betterment of a few politicians.
As to your fantasy climate models. Your brilliant comment that we have 120 years of temperature data? Sorry, 120 years ago, a few antique and inaccurate thermometers in New York and London is about as useful as no information. I think before you state the only relevant information is surface temperature in at atmosphere that extends miles and oh yeah the SUN affects the entire thing. CO2 is greater than what, 100 years ago, a million years ago? I think you better check your knowledge. The world has had hurricanes, floods and drought all through the planet's history and now is not at all unusual in frequency or intensity. The Fact is we are in an interglacial period during the current ice age and as expected it gets warmer. Also, just to be clear, the ice core evidence for CO2 shows CO2 increases after temperature increases, completely removing your causal effect. Also, Water vapor has a much bigger and provable effect on warming the atmostphere than CO2, so maybe you should start reading Nature maybe instead of Fox or MSNBS or NPR. Why would anyone pay attention to any of those channels?
"$1.5 Trillion" that you mentioned will go back to local businesses who traded with Carbon credit. There is businesses which offer services to plant tree and develop green tech (such as plankton feeding, and hi-tech wind sail) to offset the Carbon produced by its client. For example: if factory A produce too much smog, thus he must pay some local businesses to clean up the mess or pay tax, = win win.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example: look at "Modern Marvel: Environmental Tech 2" (it mentioned some of the tech).
Also, US company already invested heavily in India to plant crop for export back to US. If India fail: US will fail too. This is mentioned in BBC's documentary called "How much people Earth can support" if I'm not mistaken...
US is a global power: it reach everywhere. For example: in documentary "Under the Machine of Loving grace", South Korean's economic collapse in the 90's is very linked to US investor. This is called "Globalisation".
$1.5T is your worst-case scenario using astronomically expensive nuclear power to supplant coal power. How about we pick the low-hanging fruit of efficiency and conservation first. We should put all the unemployed people to work retrofitting our existing buildings and new construction should be LEED Gold or Platinum. We should encourage smart growth, allowing people the choice of walking, biking or taking public transit to their destinations instead of having the voracious energy and space requirements of the automobile determine our city planning. We should redirect ALL fossil fuel subsidies towards this effort. Once we match the Europeans on a CO2 / $ GDP basis, then we should funnel the fossil fuel subsidies towards massive renewable energy deployment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat 0.08C is just for the U.S. Multiply that by 4 because let’s face it, the entire world ALWAYS looks to us for leadership. We've been the sticking point in ALL international CO2 negotiations and once we wise up, the rest of the world will slowly but surely follow suit. Besides, which date is that 0.08C for anyway? CO2 doesn't just warm the climate and then disappear, the cumulative emissions we avoid will eventually surpass the 0.08C and then keep going. Then you have to figure out how much of the fast feedbacks we avoid. For example, ice sheets are unstable and if 0.08C prevents a few from disintegrating, then you have to account for the negative forcing the ice provides vs. the bare land that would absorb MORE heat if we had emitted that carbon.
If some countries don't want to reduce their emissions, slap tariffs on their imports and deny them adaptation funds from the U.N. We have to get CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to peak by 2050 or so BELOW 500ppm, but even that looks risky, so we may have to have a lower peak value sooner or some combination. This entails 80% reductions in carbon emissions by then. This is possible with today's technology, but the timelines are tight so all these delaying actions are really just making the problem more expensive to solve and locking in more misery for future generations all in the name of preserving dirty energy's subsidized and privatized profits while their externalized losses are socialized.
Sault, the problem with your global warming theory and why it is NOT science is because you assume that the globe is warming from human causes and you are setting out to find the cause. The original assumption of what is causing the global warming is not proven and may not even be valid. First you must determine what exactly is the normal temperature and considering the 4 billion years of earth history to choose from, it is highly improper to just arbitrarily declare a temperature as normal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the core assumption of your human caused global warming theory is itself and arbitrary and unproven belief, any so called science to prove this is false because it is not looking for reality, only justification for your fantasies.
To top that off, there are actual human caused pollution problems which are being ignored as massive amounts of money and time are used up chasing your fantasies.
The reality is we don't know the exact cause but because earth's history is full of hotter and colder climates, more extreme natural weather and less, it is probably safer and less costly to conclude the globe is warming because that is the natural change of climate on earth and we will have to deal with it. A single volcanic eruption can put more greenhouse gases and other pollutants into the atmosphere than anything humans do, there are simply too many natural reasons for global warming and they don't require flawed computer models and belief in fantasies to reasonable show the effects of natural effects on climate.
This debate is important because people like you are advocating nonsense like burying CO2 underground, where you have artificially removed from the biosphere Carbon and Oxygen, two very important elements for organic life. Your mitigate methods are likely to do far worse damage than anything we are doing now. Really sir, do you think you know so much about climate and the biosphere to fool around with two of the core elements for it? Also in history, human intervention is perceived or real problems are usually worse than the original problem.
please have a look at www.skepticalscience.com All your denier canards are debunked with actual scientific evidence there. As for history, how could a country "still be living in the 17th Century" if the USA wasn't even around until the 18th Century? Like I said, just crack open a history book and THINK every now and then, will you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUS consume 4 time the amount of resources of the other nations combined (food, water, energy). US is a global superpower and is in the forefront of economic, technological and political ideology, and also consumed alot of resources due to its consumerism ideology. -No where on earth could you find such wealth like in the US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is mentioned briefly in BBC's documentary: "How much people can Earth support"/ or the one with similar sounding title.
You must understand... US is really consuming alot of resource. What people currently thinking is: either to tell the third world country to reduce reproduction rate (reduce food consumption) or to tell US reduce its consumption, to solve looming food crisis. -Its either stop making babies or stop being soo rich...
Really, sir, do YOU think you know enough about the biosphere and the environment to show that our uncontrolled experiment in atmospheric chemistry will turn out ok for our species? Seriously, how can we change the concentration of a gas in the atmosphere by 40% and expect things to be just peachy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 traps heat and we're causing it to build up in the atmosphere. What part of that do you not understand? If we can agree on those facts, then it really becomes an argument about Climate Sensitivity. Given that many lines of evidence converge on the Earth's climate sensitivity being around 3C for a doubling of CO2. You can argue for a lower figure, but you MUST support very extraordinary evidence that can stand up to the paleoclimate record and modern atmospheric science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
"As a woman I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman, my country is the whole world."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this— Virginia Woolf
You do realize, the american colonies were there before the Revolutionary war and many of the concepts of today's America, like how to cooperate to create a better society existed before the revolution? Also the assumption there was if American did not exist, how would the world be, well Indians would still be running around north america killing each other and the rest of the old world would still be living in the 17th or earlier centuries, with most people destitute and some aristocrats living on their backs. You do know there were people on the planet before America existed? Until America came along and declared individuals have rights, there were none. Until America came on the scene and started producing and inventing, there was only the last 1000 years of pretty basic stuff. You do realize the planet went from basically nothing to fully industrialized in 100 years and none of that happened until America was here. The fact is the 19th century would not have happened if America was not here and if that century did not happen, we would still be living as people were in the 17th century and before.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as your denier issues, goofy websites with bias are not proof of anything. The fact that your CO2 cause only works in computer models and can't be reproduced in reality anywhere is the problem, except on Venus, which is a few million miles closer to the sun than we are. Which is itself evidence indicating the Sun has more of an effect on climate than humans do.
I can agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere could have some kind of effect. It does trap heat but unfortunately there is a saturation point at about 12%, where any additional CO2 above the saturation point has no effect. It is like having black sun glasses, making those glasses even more black will not block any additional light and CO2 is the same. Water Vapor is more of a problem for what you describe. This is the problem, your evidence suggests the possibility but is not definitive. Water vapor and the Sun can account for warming also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, as you state, we have increased an amount of Co2 by 40% as compared to some arbitrary past measure. This Carbon is and always has been part of the biosphere. We did not create the carbon out of nothing. So it is just as reasonable to conclude adding back into the biosphere what was already part of the biosphere may not actually be a problem.
Though I do agree that Human's do have an effect and it is even possible all the extra carbon is bad. Knee jerk responses to declaration of global destruction and claims humans will just throw in the towel and start WWIII are what I have the real issue with.
So until we know what the real effect of CO2 and every other substance humans put in the environment is, we should not focus on just one natural substance, which unlike other pollutants is actually needed by the biosphere to function. The earth seems to have methods to mitigate CO2 on its own because CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been much higher than today ad obviously not human caused and the earth survived.
The other issue is even if I were to accept your unproven belief, the solutions are worse. Have you seen things like Windmill farms? They take up massive amounts of real estate and likely are more damaging. Using up massive amounts of farmland to grow fuel is a bit insane and electric vehicles only move the problem to coal plants. Solar panels also take up space and I the chemicals used to produce them are more damaging than CO2 as is the insanity of spreading a known toxin like Mercury vapor to everywhere to save a miniscule amount of CO2. I would rather deal with a warmer globe and some extra CO2 over mercury poisoning everywhere. I suppose we could kill off 4 or 5 billion people and then we would not need the energy.
I think it is prudent to avoid treating the earth like a pharmaceutical patient. First you do something to remove CO2, then when you find you removed too much, you artifically add something back and then more, then later find out CO2 wasn't the cause
Xponen, the US could not exist and the planet would still be over used by the rest of the world. In addition, your two choices of the US be oppressed and removed of its wealth or the third world stop making babies is incorrect. The third world could in fact give up its insane forms of tyranny and thug governments and actually produce wealth like the US. Even in democracies like India, your tribal chief, or some family association rules most of what happens. Also the assumption the US takes food and resources from the world for itself is incorrect. We grow our own food and have enough land to grow far more. We produce the majority of our own energy needs and unlike the third world, we do not use slave labor or other thug based economies to steal anything, we pay and trade for everything we have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow if the rest of the world were to produce like America we would also have less pollution. The US is the most efficient in resource use. We actually have enforced environmental laws and pollution controls, unlike China or India. So if they became like the US, they would impose similar pollution controls, which would result in reducing pollution more than what would be reduced if the US was eliminated.
Wealth is not a zero sum game, were America got the way it did by being first to the money pile. All the third world has to do is produce wealth of their own. The more everyone produces the more people will have and the more people have, the more likely people will agree to and even participate in pollution control efforts. Reducing all Americans to paupers and distributing the wealth around does nothing but create pollution like the old soviet union did and only gives the money and power to a few elite politicians, leaving us living in the worse possible world possible.
Third world countries really need to remove the parts of their societies from the old world. I seriously doubt any country will improve when they still believe babies should be exposed for being female or justice is based on your family status or your tribal position
With regard to the "Indians running around killing each other", they were very inefficient at killing compared to the civilised European Americans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith Gatling guns and germ warfare such as spreading Small Pox their genocide was almost a complete success .
Only girls?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about boys who will also suffer from the effects of global warming?
Funny how bias works...
@priddseren, "I can agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere could have some kind of effect. It does trap heat but unfortunately there is a saturation point at about 12%, where any additional CO2 above the saturation point has no effect." prove that. I am so bored with the deniers. You are transparent. You are nothing but pathological liars. There is a reason you are called deniers. You simply reject anything that challenges your world view. You make up the rest. There is a simple process called science. All you need to do is follow it to prove your hypothesis. But you don't do that. Instead you try to fight what should be a scientific issue in the court of public opinion. That is politics. That is what the denier movement is. A political play by right wing fanatics to prevent government intervention. You are the lowest of the low. You will gladly sacrifice the welfare of your children so you can continue stuffing your pockets. AGW isn't the problem. The problem is people like you who use ignorance and fear to manipulate the scientifically illiterate masses. Until you produce a paper proving your hypothesis your opinion is meaningless. You can lie all you want, make up any B.S. you want - it doesn't change anything. You're just like one of those poor individuals shouting at the wall about government conspiracies. You think you have it all figured out while everyone around you thinks you're mentally ill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@priddseren, "I can agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere could have some kind of effect. It does trap heat but unfortunately there is a saturation point at about 12%, where any additional CO2 above the saturation point has no effect." prove that. I am so bored with the deniers. You are transparent. You are nothing but pathological liars. There is a reason you are called deniers. You simply reject anything that challenges your world view. You make up the rest. There is a simple process called science. All you need to do is follow it to prove your hypothesis. But you don't do that. Instead you try to fight what should be a scientific issue in the court of public opinion. That is politics. That is what the denier movement is. A political play by right wing fanatics to prevent government intervention. You are the lowest of the low. You will gladly sacrifice the welfare of your children so you can continue stuffing your pockets. AGW isn't the problem. The problem is people like you who use ignorance and fear to manipulate the scientifically illiterate masses. Until you produce a paper proving your hypothesis your opinion is meaningless. You can lie all you want, make up any B.S. you want - it doesn't change anything. You're just like one of those poor individuals shouting at the wall about government conspiracies. You think you have it all figured out while everyone around you thinks you're mentally ill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes science, please show me the science that shows global warming is even a problem to solve, let alone it is human caused. What is not science is skipping the hypothesis and just declaring the globe is warming, it wasn't like that 20 years ago, it must be because of evil human industry, so now let's find the proof of our belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe data you claim "proves" human's cause global warming does not exist.
The actual ice cores show through every warming event(which means natural, since no industry existed) the CO2 rise occurs After the rise in temperature. In addition, the interglacial warming is a recurring natural event, which we are experiencing and this is neither happening at a faster rate than the past nor is it a higher temperature than the past.
My job is based on analysis of fact and finding problems. Nothing here exists to demonstrate global warming is caused by human output of CO2. Is the earth warming in comparison to the Blizzards of the 70s and 80s, sure. It has also been warmer centuries before and colder.
The proof your so called human caused global warming is a belief and not science is the fact that ANY weather is proof. Too hot this year in texas, global warming, TOO cold in LA, global warming. Warm winter 2 years ago, global warming. Blizzards last year, global warming. Bird takes a 1 gram larger crap that hits a log, falls over on a spider, creating a smaller web that somehow spawns a locust swarm, all caused by global warming. Lets see, the japanese Tsunami was larger than it should have been because of global warming. It never ends. The proof your belief has no evidence is the fact that ANY AND ALL weather that happens from a sunny day to a typhoon are all "proof" of global warming. For a scientific hypothesis to be real, it must not conclude a result before doing the experiments and there has to be conditions that prove it true or false, otherwise how would you know if your positive results are in fact results?
As I mentioned before about ice cores and tree rings and etc... all those prove is the climate has been wildly different and we don't know enough about it to draw any conclusions.
My belief is a load of government supported scientists and politicians have used what is most likely a natural problem, created a crisis, have blamed it on a natural substance, we cant possible measure or understand, all so they can continue to scam money out of taxpayers, because solving real pollution issues is actually hard to do and not lucrative for power and money.
Thank you for making my point. First, the fact that Indians were less efficient at killing each other than Europeans were at killing them, does not change the fact that they were killing each other just as insanely as any other people on the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe proof of my point is, if America was not here, the Europeans would probably still be running around the planet killing everyone as they take land and resources. If not them, the japanese would be, maybe the chinese and the Arabs would be genocide everyone in the name of their religion, something they have been doing for a few hundred years. Note Christians stopped genociding in the name of god, After America became a world power.
There is a point America became a world power, which was not really until last century. After this point, is when the European colonial empires were finally dispelled, When the world stopped attempting to colonize, enslave or genocide as a primary means of international relations. Not that everyone has stopped trying but most of it has stopped and it is because of a shift in the way all the world believes in some level of individual rights and those came about after America became a country based on that very concept.
This is ridiculous. Grown scientists trying to add an emotional boost to an already discredited quack science. Grow up!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@infosmarter, "already discredited quack science" please prove that AGW has been discredited. Or are you just another pathological liar who thinks repeating a lie often enough makes it true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@priddseren,"My job is based on analysis of fact and finding problems." that is the most elaborate description yet of flipping burgers at McDonalds. You have demonstrated that you are completely irrational and somewhat delusional. I doubt the home even allows you to choose your own clothes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"My belief is a load of government supported scientists and politicians have used what is most likely a natural problem, created a crisis" so let's get this straight, thousands of scientists from all over the world have organized a conspiracy to defraud the world about climate change? How did they organize? Did someone send out a mass mailing saying, "hey, want to make some money instead of doing the science you spent the last 4-8 years of your life studying for?" ANd none of those scientists has ever defected with evidence of the conspiracy? Big oil couldn't offer them any incentives to come clean? They obviously did it for financial gain, "scam money out of taxpayers," but big oil couldn't top the money they were getting in grants? You are suffering from paranoid delusions. You need help.
"The proof your belief has no evidence is the fact that ANY AND ALL weather that happens from a sunny day to a typhoon are all "proof" of global warming." well actually no on many levels. First, climate is not weather and weather is not climate. The fact that you don't understand this clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. Second, I have never once heard any scientists say any weather event proved anything about AGW. So, you are either lying or so severely delusional that you imagined it. Either way, you have no credibility.
It truly seems as though you have a real intellectual handicap. You have claimed to be someone who uses analysis as part of their job yet you make the most basic logical errors. You can't even express yourself coherently. You really have no understanding of the science. What's more you have lied repeatedly. Obviously you are too ignorant to even know how ignorant you are but at the same time you don't seem to understand that other people are not that ignorant. Some people have actually spent time studying this stuff. You, on the other hand, haven't even read one article on it. Do you really think you can B.S. your way through this? Get back on your meds and step away from the internet. You are only making a fool of yourself. But thank you so much for showing us just the kind of person the denier movement attracts.
Study describes data of differenr percentage in women death from natural disasters but do not show original gender stratifications in cases. In many villages men may just not live in time of tsunami or drought. So it is not problem of climate change but higher comparative mobility of men.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell the reality about global warming is evident. Hasnt our planet been experiencing global warming since the last ice age anyway? As for whether we can slow it down by being more environmentally responsible, I dont know? But the reality is we HAVE to learn how to stop treating the planet the way it has been treated in the last century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The land is not inherited from our ancestors, but borrowed from our children," Elders of the Aboriginals in Canada.