JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Thousands will die if we don’t pay the UN enough

The UN Department of Pointless Statistics tells us that 250,000 extra people will die every year from 2030 – 2050 because of climate change. This is assuming that the climate models which have never worked, start to, and that people behave like gladioli, staying put, not building walls, farms or inventing better gladioli homes. It also assumes that a 60% increase global atmospheric plant fertilizer will make no difference to crops.

Indur Goklany tries to help the UN by checking some of their assumptions in his new report: “Unhealthy Exaggeration” GWPF

“He argues that the health organisation wrongly assumed that people would not take practical steps to protect themselves. These include improving water supplies and hygiene to reduce disease and relocating away from stretches of coast most vulnerable to flooding. The assumptions used by WHO are not mentioned in its fact sheet but instead relegated to the third column of a table in the full report, which is based on computer models. The column, headed “potential options not included in model”, reveals that the forecast for deaths from diarrhoea does not include “improved water, sanitation and hygiene”. The forecast for coastal flooding victims does not include “population relocation” and heatwave deaths does not take into account “improved heat health protection measures; early warning systems”. — The Times (via GWPF)

I would add that at the moment the current rate of global death is about 55 million people a year, so the theoretical  “climate” toll would be an extra 0.4% above that.  Unless, of course, the global death rate falls.

The trend so far during mass human CO2 output:

All that warming and global death rates (dark blue) decreased.

UNICEF record the effect of climate change on infant mortality to date:

….

See also:

Climate Aid: The $39 bn industry, mostly used to slow developing countries

“Seventy-one percent of the total finance [for the UN Aid program called FastStart"] went to emission-reduction ventures rather than adaptation projects such as water conservation or flood defense, today’s report shows.”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (88 votes cast)
Thousands will die if we don't pay the UN enough, 9.1 out of 10 based on 88 ratings

97 comments to Thousands will die if we don’t pay the UN enough

  • #
    RogueElement451

    Jo , with your permission of course…

    I would just like to share this comment from WUWT , since it seems to me and admittedly I,m pretty lame ,that it encapsulates a whole lot of our thoughts and fears :-

    “Tim Ball you didn’t address the biggest conundrum: why were societies, such as the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Physics, the Royal Society, and all the others, so easily swept along?

    That the UN is corrupt through-and-through is plainly evident. Anyone else remember the diverted money of the UN-mediated Iraqi oil-for-food program? Kofi Annan’s family somehow and coincidentally became very rich. So, corrupt practice in a UN climate agency is only to be expected. The shamefully corrupt culture of the UN has spread even to the World Health Organization. No surprise anymore in any of that.

    But national institutional science is another matter. Remember how the APS came down with both skeptical feet on cold fusion? Where was their equivalent due diligence on CO2-induced climate warming?

    So, Tim Ball, if you’re reading this: how did it happen that all the major scientific societies rolled right over when it came to AGW?

    I still don’t understand it.

    And I don’t think it was just about grants and money. It’s something much more basic and profound than that. But exactly what, escapes me.

    Maybe one day, when it’s all over, we’ll get testimony by guys such as Ralph Cicerone (US NAS), Tom Karl (NCDC), and past presidents of the APS, on why they so uncritically believed.”

    This was written by someone called Pat Frank and I for one would like to buy him/her a drink.

    362

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      The answer starts with ‘c’ and ends in ‘y’ but no one dares utter it. Yet.

      40

    • #
      ianl8888


      why were societies, such as the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Physics, the Royal Society, and all the others, so easily swept along?

      It wasn’t the members of these Societies per se, but rather their various Executive Committees that made public statements of AGW advocacy. The actual membership in all cases were initially denied any voice at all

      Some of these Societies have been forced to recant or at least tone down the level of advocacy. Some are still recalcitrant although there have been a number of high-profile resignations

      But your question is answered – a few vanity-obsessed individuals on various Executive Committees actually hijacked their own memberships

      90

      • #
        Robert

        That has been one of the favored tactics of alarmists in trying to convince others that “every scientific society and organization blah blah blah…”

        To which I have always informed them that the public position of an organization is not an indicator of the position held by its members.

        None of them have yet been able to provide me with proof that all of the members of whatever group they are claiming supports the AGW hypothesis actually support it. Only the claim that the group does based on a PR blurb or mission statement.

        60

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          I’d suggest while CAGW flunkies might call Skeptics, “Deniers” as in “holocaust deniers”, then what about those who would attempt to bring down society from within through the trojan horse of climate change?

          They logically would be “Collaborators”….would they not?

          Nuff said.

          40

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I think this sums it up….

      Ever wondered why the Lamestream media has been so keen to push th eidea that anyone with a bit of intelligence who can see logically whats going on, its clearly demented and a conspiracy theorist?

      “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

      ― Marcus Tullius Cicero

      50

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    In the state where I reside, our largest source of income is Climate Refugees. I live in the US, in Florida, and starting about 15 Nov, our hotels are full, our theme parks thrive, our traffic is godawful, temporary employment skyrockets as do wages for many blue collar workers in the service industries. This is fueled, of course, by people seeking to escape the COLD. A mean temperature difference of over 30 deg F is sufficient to propel this migration. We also grow vegetables and harvest citrus and other fruit, like strawberries, in this season. So tell me again how a couple of degrees of warming will kill the planet, when I can get the same effect by driving 150 miles north (still in Florida, and still infested?populated by tourists and seasonal residents.
    In season, we even have Canadian themed radios stations, and newspapers. Health Care for Canadians can go to another blog.

    We do not close our border to those who chose to flog the evils of warming as they come to soak up the sun, but we do, behind the scenes, shake our heads sorrowfully at their delusions.

    370

    • #
      RogueElement451

      Do these tourists , immigrants, not realise that they are but one good wave away from drowning ??
      The highest point in Florida is like , 2ft below sea level (kidding) when the north of Tenerife breaks off causing a tsunami it will drown the entire Eastern Seaboard !!! Then again there is global warming and MASSIVER SEA LEVEL RISE!!

      SARC.

      130

      • #
        NielsZoo

        Don’t forget that most of us in Florida have been underwater from AGW driven sea level rise for many years. The fact that we are not inundated with salt water is simply a figment of our “denier” imaginations… the IPCC’s massed scientific support systems says so.

        170

      • #
        Robert

        Lived down there from roughly 1974 to 1986. There was no sales tax, that got picked up by the tourists. We moved down the same year Dizzy World opened. Then came Epcot, then the who MGM studios and whatnot though the latter was just gearing up as I was making my exit.

        When we got there going south on Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando the city pretty much ended at Sand Lake road, then it was mostly palmettos, palm trees, one or two industrial parks, Gatorland, the Tupperware HQ, then Kissimmee.

        Last I heard these days when you go south along that route you can’t tell where Orlando stopped and Kissimmee starts. Just massive urban sprawl from one end to the other.

        There are a lot of things I miss about Florida. Being able to watch the sun come up at Coco then head over to watch the sun go down on the gulf is one. But I don’t miss the bugs or the tourists.

        Is St. Cloud still “Newly wed or nearly dead?”

        30

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Best comment I saw over at WUWT, was that the claims relied on people to be too stupid to get out of the way of a slow moving car. (paraphrased). I guess the authors think people are that stupid because they are. So they project their own stupidity on the general population.

    Should we ever get that stupid, they will be correct.

    130

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Problem is Phil it’s what type of stupid do the likes of the UN scaremongers develop and prey upon.

      You can have a perfectly rational, functioning, productive farmer and due to financial or social pressures will be forced believe the false claims to merely function in an industry that his government and local authorities have designed to literally force him into accepting the mantra’s interwoven into the framework.

      People think that using the Agenda 21 keywords sustainability, diversity, community, embrace etc.. is just a fad not realizing those are seeds being sown for compliant stupidity and it’s future growth.

      190

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      The liberal use of poorly thought through analogies is a hallmark of warmist arguments.

      Example: A mate who is a AGW tragic sent me this link as if it somehow ended the discussion we were having on how dumb he is.

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

      As per usual it was a poorly though through analogy because it is absolutely NOT the case that pirates have been decreasing. There are provably more pirates in the world today than at any other time in history and if you include the notion of internet piracy, then it really is no contest.

      Add to that the fact that his chosen site for climate science (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com) lol…. has this information also…

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon and https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature combined with the notion that eventually all analogies fail and he basically handed me more than enough ammunition to complete his daily intellectual beating at essentially his own hand.

      They just don’t think things through mate, its the burden of arguing from emotion.

      100

      • #
        Lord Jim

        ‘You presume that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.”
        https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

        ? Um like the presumption that co2 causes catastrophic global warming. ?

        40

      • #
        Radical Rodent

        Well, yes. Indeed, one of the most recent fallacies is that, for centuries, people believed the world to be flat. Evidence shows that the Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans knew the world to be round. It is only recently that the idea of a flat Earth was raised, possibly in the Victorian “age of enlightenment”, as they sought to show how their knowledge had advanced (by, somewhat bizarrely, creating a myth). What a daft – nay, even fallacious – reason for a web-site (and what silly examples)!

        70

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    If we accept that the UN is corrupt, and if we are opposed to corruption, as I am sure all Australian politicians are (sic), perhaps the wisest move would be for Australia, and perhaps New Zealand, to decline supporting such corruption, and to withdraw all funding.

    250

  • #
    shrillyfilly

    I can’t beleive you deniers don’t understand what the statistics really mean.

    The models specifically did not include the variables such as better water, better health and better technology because the real devastasting carastrophe is not amongst denier groups.

    The real catastrophe is obviously amongst those who live with the ideology of Anthropogenic Global Warming, but can no longer live with the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    I just can’t get the image of a despondent adjunct Professor Tim Flannery out of my mind.

    Oh the pain, Will Robinson, the pain…

    What a senseless waste of human life.

    130

  • #
    davefromweewaa

    Hi Jo,
    Yesterday on ABC’s NSW country hour they had Karl Braganza from BOM on claiming November was the hottest since records began. I sent in a text (which was not read out) asking if it was the hottest since records began or since records began to be truncated and adjusted. Do you or does anyone else here know if Braganza’s claim is true or not?
    Sorry for being off topic.

    110

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      I heard the same claim yesterday from one source, then later another report said the hottest spring on record and November 2nd hottest on record.
      On hearing these reports my mind wondered and I pondered how hot was Australia in general during the spring, summer of 1923/1924 when the longest heat wave ever recorded was 160 days straight at Marble Bar above 100F, surely while this was happening in Marble Bar, the heat must have been felt elsewhere across Australia.

      120

    • #
      gai

      not true

      In Australia, The World Began In 1953
      “The start date of 1953 was carefully cherry picked as one of the coldest periods on record in Australia.”

      Australia’s Hottest Year Was 1878

      Major Monkey Business In Australia

      A few days ago I noted that the GHCN database for Australia has very little data prior to 1957….
      Well it turns out that lack of data prior to 1957 is due to GHCN simply not including it. Berkeley Earth has Nobbys data going back to the 1860’s, but the GHCN data is missing prior to 1957.

      But it is worse than it seems…..

      80

      • #
        el gordo

        The 1878 spike in temperatures was of a universal nature.

        ‘Around the year 1878, a dramatic shift in the climate occurred coincident with and perhaps triggered by an impulsive spike in temperature. As a result, the climate moved from a cooling phase of about -.7 °C/century to a warming phase of about +.5°C/century, which has remained constant to the present. We see that this period of time was coincident with a large spike in solar activity.’

        J S Patterson (guest post at WUWT)

        30

    • #
      observa

      Here’s what The Australian reported on Dec 1st-

      “AUSTRALIA has had its hottest spring and its hottest November on record.

      BUREAU of Meteorology climate monitoring manager Karl Braganza says 2014 was the latest in a long line of hot springs in the past decade.

      The previous record was set only last year, he said.
      “Really, it was only 2010 that had a cool spring in the past 10 years or so. Nine out of the warmest springs on record have occurred since 2002,” Dr Braganza told AAP.
      Australia’s average seasonal temperature is derived by averaging the temperature data from weather stations, where records go back to 1910.
      The figure is then compared with the long-term average temperature, which measures the period from 1961 to 1990.
      The average spring 2014 temperature of 24.17C exceeded the mean by 1.67C, Dr Braganza said.”

      Notice the pea and thimble trick. An ‘average’ is supposedly derived from a weather station record going back to 1910, by which the astute observer would know by then Oz had rolled out a fairly comprehensive national Stevenson Screen measurement system. So far so good, but then note the even more pitifully short, 30 yr, cherry picked period by which they calculate their ‘average’ for current comparison? Yes ignorant folks and media dumbclucks, it’s apparently only 30 yrs all centred on 1975 when some scientists were beginning to worry about an impending Ice Age.

      So climate monitoring ‘manager’ Braganza of the illustrious Oz BOM, tell us why your ‘average’ is not based on the full, yet still pitifully short, Stevenson Screen record since 1910?
      Would that be because you can’t trust a century of records, let alone the the previous 50+ years of thermometer readings? If not why not? If you can’t ‘manage’ an answer it’s because you’re a bunch of obvious charlatans leading the blind.

      Then the Fourth estate dutifully parrot this BOM nonsense ready for Lima.

      110

      • #
        Radical Rodent

        I wonder if, in 30 years’ time, when we are being warned to “act now to avert the ice age” (at huge cost to the poor tax-paying sap, as usual), this alarm over warming will be swept away? That is effectively what has happened to the alarm of the ice age from the 1970s (“It’s a myth, that never happened!”); will they have the same audacity to try and say that today’s warming alarm never happened, either?

        20

  • #
    Neville

    Lomborg uses Goklany’s extensive research in his book Cool It and is able to easily prove that a warmer world will mean fewer deaths.

    If the world does warm slightly until 2100 the reduction from cold deaths will continue and with greater prosperity/invention and technology humans can adapt very easily to warmer conditions. The research over the last 100 years proves this to be correct.

    110

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    gladioli

    That’s funny.
    Not as funny as “Who’s on first.” But not much is.

    60

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    If you want to see an effect on the infant mortality rate try comparing a country with a well developed fossil fuel industry to one without lol. Say what you like about CO2 but if your economy has it your population will be healthier, smarter, richer and just generally better off. Out of a choice between Beijing and Kinshasa…. you decide.’

    Infant mortality rates /1000
    DRoC – 80
    China – 11

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.IMRT.IN <– Long story short if your still burning dung, your dying in droves in the dirt. If your burning coal your watching pay TV with a bag of chips and a coke.

    Industry = survival simple as that. More industry = better outcomes for people on every measure. End of debate.

    150

  • #
    PeterK

    And then there is this paper on CO2:

    “A serious question, generally unasked and unanswered: how will rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere directly affect human health via breathing toxicity?

    http://grapevine.com.au/~pbierwirth/co2toxicity.pdf

    Not being a sciencey guy, I read this paper and don’t think there is any validity in what has been written, but then again, I don’t know what to make of this paper.

    So, anyone here who is more qualified in reading and understanding what has been written, your comments would be appreciated.

    Thanks

    40

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      You are a source of CO₂. Your exhaled breath is 4% CO₂, so your lungs, trachea, mouth and nasal passages are continuously exposed to a CO₂ level one hundred times greater than the atmosphere. The effect of breathing an atmosphere of 500 ppm will be negligible.

      Indoor CO₂ concentrations of 1000 ppm are common; 5000 ppm is not unusual. In the words of Kama Gusada, the paper is blatant boroshitu.

      70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I am used to reading technical papers, but this one was awful.

      It looks to be epidemiological review of a whole lot of rather dubious epidemiological climate studies. It might not be, of course, I didn’t wade right through it.

      The key point for me is that it totally ignores the fact that all navies around the world, that have nuclear submarines, run them at very high levels (by atmospheric terms) of CO2 concentrations. They are submerged for long periods of time, and the crews are employed from between six to thirty years, and very few, if any, people have died from CO2 “poisoning”. There are lots of other things that can kill you if you are playing sardines, but CO2 is not one of them.

      If you want an easy read about the way epidemiology is misused, get hold of a copy of “Sorry, Wrong Number”, by John Brignell. If you enjoy that, you could also read “The Epidemiologists – Have they got scares for you!”, also by John Brignell. (Apart from exchanging the occasional email, I have no connection, financial or otherwise).

      80

    • #
      Bog Cog

      Of course, everyone in the world who thinks CO2 is bad should stop breathing, this could cause some problems but the positives could outweigh the negatives.

      50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      A serious question, generally unasked and unanswered: how will rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere directly affect human health via breathing toxicity?

      Peter,

      Let’s compare this scare with the truth. This is the best information I could find on it earlier this year. Various sources had the numbers somewhat different but these will do for the purpose.

      - CO2 is known to cause difficulty for many but not all people at about 3% concentration.

      - CO2 is known to be toxic at 5%.

      3% is .03 X 1,000,000 or 30,000 parts per million (PPM)

      5% is .05 X 1,000,000 or 50,000 PPM

      And we are at around 400 PPM. Yeah! I think we all ought to be scared out of our wits — scared of the nitwits who promulgate this nonsense.

      Experience trumps studies and vagrant opinions. The United States Navy regularly lets CO2 rise as high as 8,000 PPM on board submerged submarines and no one feels it. The environment aboard a submarine is one of the most thoroughly researched and studied environments in the world. Only in space do you have a more stringent need to keep a safe atmosphere 100% of the time.

      We need to get back our basic understanding of the meaning of numbers and the meaning of facts?

      30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Did anyone notice this statement in the paper in question?

        High levels of carbon dioxide correspond with high
        levels of acid (low pH) in the blood and signal the need for more oxygen.

        That’s contrary to the physiology I learned. It signals a need to get rid of CO2 faster. Oxygen isn’t the problem, it’s too much CO2. And respiration speeds up to get rid of it faster. The body compensates easily. As far as I know, only those gadgets they clamp on your finger in the hospital care about how much O2 is in your system, assuming reasonable health of course.

        20

  • #
    NielsZoo

    A main limitation of this assessment is the inability of current models to account for major pathways of potential health impact, such as the effects of economic damage, major heatwave events, river flooding and water scarcity.

    (This from an excerpt from the WHO report posted at WUWT, emphasis mine.)
    What is with these folks and their computer models? Are any of them capable of research and independent thought or must everything be built from the worn out Legos® and Lincoln Logs® of statistical doom? Every single one of these end-of-the-world reports has buried in it somewhere a statement or footnote along these same lines. Science has been replaced with statistically generated fantasy and research has become play time with multimillion dollar taxpayer funded video games. Sometimes I wonder if we didn’t all take the red pill and we’re fighting the Matrix… or at least something statistically similar to it that may be predicted in our next run of the Global Science Guessing Model… as long as our grant money keeps paying for code and computer time.

    70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Computer models are written by Computer Modelers, using untested hypotheses, expressed in algorithms that have dubious provenance, on computers that are demonstrably inaccurate when handling very small and very large floating point numbers.

      They can never supply you with the truth about anything, although they are good at identifying some of the stuff that you haven’t thought of, but need to take into account, if you could only figure out how.

      The output can never be any more accurate than the least accurate input data. Garbage-in equals garbage-out, and adjusted garbage-in equals fantasy-out.

      I confess all this, as somebody who was previously a modeler, and was helped by Algorithm Anonymous.

      80

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        …Algorithm Anonymous.

        He seems to get around a lot. I’ve met him more than once. And he has a cousin, Algorithm Complicated who probably causes more trouble than Mr. Anonymous.

        I was never a modeler so the problem is wider than modeling.

        20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      What is with these folks and their computer models?

      The simple answer is that once you create an organization and tell it to protect you from yourself, it needs to keep finding things to protect you from. And finding such things is a whole lot easier on a computer than it is out in the wild where the actually dangerous things are.

      The more complicated answer is that the left side of politics doesn’t care what the facts are. And everything to do about the UN tilts far to the left.

      I think the simple answer hasn’t a chance to be changed because the second answer overrides any consideration of what one’s real responsibility is and is not. I used to think it was the other way around but the more I watch how organizations and individuals behave the more certain I am that they have an agenda and don’t give a damn about facts.

      If an elevated level of CO2 in the blood has such dire consequences how is it that people who run for as much as an hour or more every day don’t suffer from it? How is it that anyone who does physically demanding activities suffers no consequences? How did anything survive when CO2 concentration was so much higher than it is now? Why is it that the major economic impact, implying health problems, comes from efforts to reduce fossil fuel use rather than using the stuff to keep the world’s economy vibrant and alive?

      Is it a stretch to call this nonsense hypocritical? I think not.

      30

      • #
        NielsZoo

        … especially when, in the US and UK, we give a whole bunch of nuclear warheads and missiles to submarine crews that routinely live in environments with massively higher CO2 levels.

        30

  • #
    • #
      Rodzki

      Wow! Excellent news.

      70

    • #
      scaper...

      Well, we had to make a statement in regards to the Lima gabfest. I believe Julie Bishop will be attending. No PM or Environment Minister.

      50

      • #
        Dennis

        The Greens will be so angry and frustrated that they will not enjoy their Christmas dinners.

        70

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          The Greens are only happy when they are miserable, or making other people even more miserable. But since this news will make many people happy, they will have a thoroughly gloomy time.

          70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      “As an executive director, you have to be disappointed because clearly the contribution of member states is what enables UNEP to fulfil its mandate and be of service to the global community,” Mr Steiner said.

      “It is probably the most effective return on investment if you think about it because Australia cannot work with 193 countries bilaterally on addressing some of these issues.

      “Therefore the value proposition of joining forces with a relatively small contribution and leveraging virtually 500 times as much financing from others seems to be something that I hope Australia will consider once again as a very good investment, and one that has benefited Australia and also the Pacific region.”

      This is typical Environmental Logic. You put a little in, and get access to a lot.

      But that is only beneficial if you can get back more than you put it – show a profit from the investment – which means that somebody else has to get back less than they put in. It becomes a lottery. It is playing Global Pokies, folks. And since when, has playing the Pokies benefited anybody, in the long run, other than the clubs where they are installed, and the people who supply the machines?

      50

    • #
      Robert

      The comments there show just how dim greens really are. The whining about “not meeting your obligations to the UN” was particularly interesting.

      Wouldn’t meeting your obligations to your own country and people be more important? Greens really are delusional.

      50

    • #
      the Griss

      Starting to aim his decisions with those who would actually ever vote Liberal (like the majority did last election)..

      …. rather than the insipid pampering to the far-left green non-environmentalists.

      60

    • #
      The Backslider

      I would imagine that most Australians would see putting $12 million into coral reef protection within our region and combating illegal logging of the great rainforests of the Asia-Pacific as a pretty good investment compared with $4 million for bureaucratic support within the UN system – Greg Hunt

      Oh yeah!

      20

  • #
    pesadia

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/03/global-warming-climate-refugees If you like big numbers, they don’t come much bigger than this.
    Bout time I learned to swim.

    50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You know they are lying, when they use equivocal words like, “could”, “might”, “possibly”, etc.

      I expect the Gruaniad sub-editors have hot-key combinations for those words.

      40

    • #
      Robert

      That could only happen if you count people moving south because it got too damn cold in the higher latitudes.

      60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Environmental Justice Foundation now? Did the environment commit some crime I don’t know about?

      I’m thinking the EJF is the greater crime.

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I’m sorry the Maldives have erosion problems. But so do the beaches and cliffs of California. That’s what the ocean does. It eats away at the land relentlessly — everywhere. If there ever are environmental refugees I’ll bet it won’t be from climate change but from human failure to take simple measures like seawalls and the like. The Netherlands and the City of New Orleans both have large areas below water level along with a lot of places along the Mississippi that are protected from the spring water level rise by levies and it’s been that way since long before climate change was an issue. How is it that they can cope with high water and the rest of the world can’t?

        Does no one ever notice that Al Gore’s outrageous predictions haven’t even started to come true?

        10

  • #
    handjive

    A Quote:
    “The world only needs $30 billion dollars a year to eradicate the scourge of hunger.”

    - Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO, 2008)
    http://www.fao.org/NEWSROOM/en/news/2008/1000853/index.html

    2014:
    “For those who hope the world can avoid dangerous climate change, some recent developments have given cause to celebrate.

    Last year, climate finance investments were split almost equally between developed and developing countries, with USD 164 billion and USD 165 billion respectively.”
    http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/21/three-reasons-to-be-optimistic-about-climate-finance-flows/
    . . .
    Sadly, the optimistic ones are the ones receiving all that money to “pretend” to stop weather.

    100

    • #
      Dennis

      Last time I read about it the report indicated that one (1) in every eight (8) Australians live in poverty.

      Now how much money did Union Labor borrow 2007-2013, and give away mostly?

      90

  • #

    The forecast 250,000 extra people dying every year from 2030 – 2050 because of climate change is actually positive news. The authoritative Greenpeace UK website informs us

    The impacts of climate change are already responsible for killing an estimated 315,000 people every year and damaging ecosystems.

    Greenpeace’s link is to a 2009 report by the Global Humanitarian Forum of Geneva, whose President is Kofi Annan. It gets worse. Page 14

    The number of deaths from weather-related disasters and gradual environmental degradation due to climate change is expected to jump to about 500,000 people per year.

    This is by 2030.
    Then there are the forecast extra 95,000 fatalities from climate change-related diarrhoea incidences and 55,000 fatalities from climate change-triggered malaria outbreaks. (page 31)
    This alone means that in 2030 650,000 deaths a year from climate change. With the premature deaths from the extra 40-45 million hungry each year that is maybe a million extra forecast deaths. A 75% decrease in the annual projected death toll means that the impacts of climate change are much less than previously thought.

    90

    • #
      NielsZoo

      Don’t forget the several thousand formerly sane people who commit suicide by pounding their heads into brick walls after reading one too many of these inane UN reports… those should count as well.

      90

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      Based on what Greenpeace has been publishing, it appears the diarrhoea epidemic is in full flood.

      70

  • #
  • #
    TdeF

    How can everyone keep talking about Climate Change? What happened to Global Warming, man made or not? Given that the world has not warmed at all this century, it seems to be a given in the press that it is still happening and that Climate Change is happening and that people are drowning and the world is collapsing and people are dying? From what?

    Even the IPCC says this while admitting that nothing has actually changed. This is a Mad Hatter’s tea party. There has been no warming. Why doesn’t anyone just get up and say so?

    60

    • #
      Manfred

      There has been no warming. Why doesn’t anyone just get up and say so?

      TdeF, I am guessing you may have omitted the /rhet tag?

      Possibly one answer might suggest that it is politically incorrect, nay heretical, to express anything less than the rabid enthusiastic Green mantra “save the planet.” And as you may well realise, within this ‘eco-Amen’ phrase lies the implication that humankind are no more than a festering excoriation on the face of Gaia. The billions of dollars spent on ecclesiastical models by the climate church testify to the fanatical scientifically compelling nature of the belief

      Meanwhile there are still those of reputable credentials that advise of incipient global cooling. Luckily for them, we are not yet entirely regressed to the Middle Ages. Doubtless there will be someone at the UN who will switch ‘warm’ to ‘cold’ before ‘deaths’ in the name of ‘climate change’ at the appropriate moment between 2030 – 50.

      70

  • #
    C.J.Richards

    Whoop, Whoop!
    It must be the first Day of the annual Climate silly season, somewhere.
    This from researchers at the University of Southampton. Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions
    Isn’t that where they discovered cold fusion ;-)

    90

    • #
      the Griss

      LOL, the first 4 words in the abstract are…

      “Climate model experiments reveal …….. “

      and ends..

      “We suggest that our theoretical framework may be used to diagnose the global warming response in climate models and mechanistically understand the differences between their projections.”

      Funny stuff, to be sure !!! :-)

      112

  • #
    pat

    read it all. u have to laugh. Japan denies any wrongdoing and has done nothing illegal — there are no rules against counting such projects as climate finance in the U.N. system, the article states. we know the World Bank is talking CAGW, but providing loans/funding for coal, and the Japanese benefit from this financing, so it’s still a matter of doing what is in one’s best interests:

    1 Dec: AP: Climate funds for coal highlight lack of UN rules
    By KARL RITTER and MARGIE MASON
    AP reporters Yuri Kageyama and Ken Moritsugu in Tokyo contributed to this report.
    About $1 billion in loans under a U.N. initiative for poor countries to tackle global warming is going toward the construction of power plants fired by coal, the biggest human source of carbon pollution.
    Japan gave the money to help its companies build three such plants in Indonesia and listed it with the United Nations as climate finance, The Associated Press has found. Japan says these plants burn coal more efficiently and are therefore cleaner than old coal plants…
    Japan’s coal projects highlight the lack of rules to steer the flow of climate finance from rich to poor countries — a critical part of U.N. talks on global warming, which resume Monday in Lima, Peru. There is no watchdog agency that ensures the money is spent in the most effective way, and no definition of what climate finance is…
    “There are countries … that cannot afford to have other methods than coal,” Japanese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Takako Ito said. “For these countries, we’d like to provide the best method of reducing carbon dioxide.”
    However, U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres, who was unaware that the Japanese-funded coal plants in Indonesia were labeled as climate finance, said “there is no argument” for supporting such projects with climate money.
    “Unabated coal has no room in the future energy system,” she told AP. “Over time, what we should be seeing is a very, very clear trend of investment into clean renewable energy.”…
    Even the newly launched Green Climate Fund, a key channel for climate finance in the future, still only has vague guidelines on how to spend the money. Board member Jan Cedergren said he didn’t believe the fund would support fossil fuels but acknowledged no decision has so far been made…
    ***Although no environmental studies have been done, local fishermen in Kanci Kulon village near the Cirebon plant in West Java say their catches have shrunk…
    Heru Dewanto, vice president of the utility that runs Cirebon, acknowledged that the plant had caused some problems for “200 to 300 green mussel farmers or fishermen,” but noted that it also provides electricity to half a million homes…
    Germany still supports such projects, but doesn’t count them as climate finance.
    Most environmental groups weren’t aware Japan was using climate finance to build coal plants.
    “Climate finance is such a mess. It needs to get straightened out,” said Karen Orenstein of Friends of the Earth. “It would be such a shame if those resources went to fossil fuel-based technologies. It would be counterproductive.”
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20141201/as–japan-climate-financing_coal-abridged-829b5c99e0.html

    40

  • #
    Manfred

    Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions (link at #18).

    It is hard to credit that this represents serious ‘research’ isn’t it? Here we have a theoretical equation that “demonstrates” GW is AGW because it is consistent with compellingly representative climate models – (1) and (2).

    Summary:
    Research has identified, for the first time, how global warming is related to the amount of carbon emitted. A team of researchers has derived the first theoretical equation to demonstrate that global warming is a direct result of the build-up of carbon emissions since the late 1800s when human-made carbon emissions began. The results are in accord with previous data from climate models.

    60

  • #
    pat

    Bloomberg’s “George Shultz Defies GOP in Embrace of Climate Adaptation” article which i posted on jo’s previous thread has a new headline!!! same url, same story. did the CAGW psychologists think the new headline would be more effective?

    George Shultz Gone Solar. Now That’s a Sign of Thawing in the U.S. Climate Debate
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-01/reagan-statesman-s-sunshine-power-hint-of-thaw-in-climate-debate.html

    20

  • #

    I’m sorry, but I think I’ve had enough.

    Do these people actually listen to what is coming out of their own mouths, or actually read what they write?

    pat linked to an article yesterday (link here) which is in the lead up to the UNFCCC COP20 in LIma Peru. The article says this: (my bolding)

    The two-week UN climate conference in Lima is the 20th to be held since 1995 and follows publication by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of its Fifth Assessment Report, which said greenhouse-gas emissions needed to fall to zero by 2100.

    What?

    No electrical power generation at all from virtually any source. Hydro produces Methane. Fossil fuels produce CO2. They won’t be able to build any of them anyway, because (no CO2 emissions) they can’t manufacture steel and concrete, and here think of more than 1000 Tonnes of steel and concrete for EACH wind tower.

    No cars for anybody, but hey, no buses, no trucks, no planes, no trams (no electricity) no ships, no trains (diesel or electric), and hey they can’t make any more of any transport, no concrete or steel.

    No more high rise, think any city, work or residential. (no more concrete or steel)

    No more communication.

    No farming/grazing.

    No mining, so there goes Nuclear Power as well, so no electricity whatsoever.

    No refrigeration, but hey, who cares, there’s nothing to put in fridges anyway.

    No plastics, all petroleum based.

    No nothing.

    Just who are these people trying to kid?

    And please, don’t even begin to tell me that technology will replace all this, because without anything else, there is no technology, and it’ll be useless anyway.

    At least Africa will have a good head start on us. They’re already living in the dark ages.

    We just get to go back and join them.

    I’m awfully sorry United Nations, but I’m afraid my brain has not been surgically removed.

    What’s going on here? Have I missed something?

    Bah! Who cares?

    Well I DO CARE, and I even occasionally think.

    Tony.

    181

    • #

      they must mean net emission as, apart from the things you mentioned, zero emissions means no breathing from humans or livestock.

      42

      • #
        ianl8888


        … net emission …

        And what exactly does that mean ?

        Have the “they” worked out the precise details of the global carbon cycle now ?

        It’s shallow, glib throwaway nonsense like that which is the harbinger of scientific ignorance amongst the general populace

        50

        • #

          I agree but it is still what they mean.

          20

          • #
            Robert

            It is not what they said, you are only speculating that it is what they mean. Assuming it means what you choose to interpret it as meaning because that is the sensible interpretation does not mean they actually have the sense to have meant it that way.

            20

    • #

      Tony,
      Maybe you should highlight a list of things that they can relate to.
      Things like:
      No money, no credit cards, no debit cards, no Centrelink payments, no Banks.
      No Woolworths, no Coles, no shops, no clothing, no drugs, no alcohol.
      No ABC, no TV, no radio, no mobile (cell) phones, no iPads, no internet.

      60

      • #

        Some – most actually- of those things will only exist in museums or history books in 2010 regardless of how the climate changes.

        20

        • #
        • #

          I see.
          So who is going to build and maintain the museums?
          And who is going to manufacture, print and distribute the history books?
          Given that the remaining population will most likely be uneducated, living like many African tribes and surviving as hunter-gatherers. Regardless of how the climate changes.

          10

          • #
            Lord Jim

            Given that the remaining population will most likely be uneducated, living like many African tribes and surviving as hunter-gatherers. Regardless of how the climate changes.

            Haven’t you heard?

            We are going to return to the golden age, when noble savages roamed the land and the Earth gave harvest without being sown:

            “The age was formed of gold; in those first davs
            No law or force was needed; men did right
            Freely; without duress they kept their word.
            No punishment or fear of it; no threats
            Inscribed on brazen tablets; no crowds crawled
            Beseeching mercy from a lofty judge;
            For without law or judge all men were safe.
            High on its native hills the pine tree stood,
            Unlopped as yet, nor yet compelled to cross
            Ocean’s wide waves, and help men leave their homes.
            Towns had no moats; no horns of winding brass
            Nor trumpets straight, nor swords nor shields existed.
            The nations dozed through ages of soft time,
            Safe without armies; while the earth herself,
            Untouched by spade or plowshare, freely gave,
            As of her own volition, all men needed:
            And men were well content with what she gave
            Unforced and uncompelled; they found the fruit
            Of the arbutus bush, and cornel-cherries,
            Gathered wild berries from the mountain-sides,
            Eating ripe fruit plucked from the thorny canes,
            And acorns as they fell from Jove’s wide oak.
            Spring lasted all year long; the warm west wind
            Played gently over flowers sprung from no seed:
            Soon too the unfilled earth brought forth profuse
            Her crops of grain; and fields, uncultivated,
            Whitened beneath their stalks of bearded wheat.
            Streams flowed profuse, now milk, now nectar, and
            The living oak poured streams of golden honey.”
            -Ovid
            (Trans at: http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/m/morillo/public/GAinfo.htm)

            20

            • #

              Thanks for that Lord Jim.

              I sent a copy of that to Greens Central, and got the following reply.

              See, that’s what we’ve been telling you all along. At last, someone finally gets it.

              Signed Sarah Hanson Young.

              (Must I add /sarc)

              Tony.

              30

      • #
        StefanL

        Tony, MaxL is right.
        You think too much like an engineer, worrying about the technical foundations of our modern civilisation :-)
        Greenies and their brainwashed (greenwashed ?) followers don’t think like that; they are far too ignorant.
        But they can relate to the consumer products and benefits that MaxL has listed.
        S

        40

  • #
    Dennis

    I just found out that ABC, not a government department but operated independently as set out in the ABC Act of Parliament, has no chief finance officer.

    30

  • #
    pat

    28 Nov: Bloomberg: Stefan Nicola: Animal Extinctions From Climate Rival End of Dinosaurs
    Animals are dying off in the wild at a pace as great as the extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago because of human activity and climate change.
    Current extinction rates are at least 12 times faster than normal because people kill them for food, money or destroy their habitat, said Anthony Barnosky, a biology professor at the University of California-Berkeley.
    “If that rate continues unchanged, the Earth’s sixth mass extinction is a certainty,” Barnosky said in a phone interview. “Within about 200 to 300 years, three out of every four species we’re familiar with would be gone.”
    ***The findings, due to air in a documentary on the Smithsonian Channel on Nov. 30, add to pressure on envoys from some 190 countries gathering next week at a United Nations conference in Peru to discuss limits on the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming…
    “We still have a chance to save almost all the species,” Barnosky said. “It’s not too late but the window of opportunity is closing fast.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-28/humans-are-the-new-asteroids-as-animals-driven-extinct.html?hootPostID=27bb38fe9391d57c58c4b9eec6c7a91f

    a friend just told me SBS One is showing the expensive, star-studded CAGW series flop “Years Of Living Dangerously” on Tuesday evenings, and i see it’s playing on their digital platofrm!

    from the 5 comments:
    RedJay: These docos are all well and good, and are to be commended, but they still tiptoe around the biggest cause of all this: human overpopulation…
    GMillsy:Very interesting doco, one that should be shown to all school children and adults around the world. Its interesting to see how a persons religion can override their ability to believe the science of climate change unless it is explaining to them by another with as strong religious beliefs…
    http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/356560963577/Years-Of-Living-Dangerously-S1-Ep1-Dry-Season

    20

  • #
    pat

    bloomberg is on a Lima roll:

    not just coffee & caviar…chocolate too ….and less crops… plus fish and everything else will go too…costs will skyrocket…danger of instability and war.

    VIDEO 1min:45secs : Bloomberg: Goodbye to Coffee and Caviar Thanks to Climate Change
    1 Dec: Climate change talks kick off today in Lima. We’re used to seeing images of ice caps melting but one other very real consequence could be a change to the food we eat. Unless ambitious targets can be reached these are four foods most likely to go missing from store shelves. Bloomberg’s Tom Gibson reports.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/video/climate-change-impacting-coffee-caviar-TTBhFksuSw6rbGfaX~7nbw.html

    40

  • #

    Well we could cut the death rate substantially for a while with a cure for cancer. There is one.

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

    Guess who is standing in the way? The UN. And the US.

    The Reagan – Bush administration tried to suppress the finding that cannabis is effective against cancer. You can look it up. Of course the Democrats did nothing when they had a chance.

    Cannabis cures cancer. Cancer kills 586,000 Americans every year. Every Prohibitionist is complicit in mass murder.

    =======================

    Here is another one. Ebola kills by cytokine storm. Cannabis can ameliorate or stop that storm. You have to ask yourself why such a cheap treatment that can be grown is not being tried.

    There are some 700 diseases were cannabinoids can help or lead to a cure. Because endocannabinoids regulate every system in the body including the immune system.

    So why don’t we have a worldwide system of research in progress to do human trials on a medicine that is non toxic and in some forms not even psychoactive?

    =====================

    It is not just the “climate” people who are profiting from mass murder.

    61

  • #
    pat

    some wishful thinking from Bloomberg and another great quote from Christiana. read it all:

    2 Dec: Bloomberg: Reed Landberg: OPEC Squeeze on Oil Spares Renewables From Energy Turmoil
    While OPEC is helping drive down global oil prices, it’s having less success squeezing the $250 billion green energy industry.
    Clean power will receive almost 60 percent of the $5 trillion expected to be invested in new power plants over the next decade, according to the International Energy Agency. That’s because the U.S., China, Japan and the European Union are all pushing for global limits on greenhouse gases and promoting alternatives to fossil fuels.
    The effort has resulted in local and national incentive policies for renewable power around the world, effectively insulating the industry from market fluctuations such as the almost 40 percent plunge in crude oil since June. So while drillers clamp down on spending, developers are on track to invest more than $250 billion this year on wind, solar, geothermal and other types of renewable power, the first gains in two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
    “Renewables are supported by policies, and that is not something that will be amended quickly just because oil prices fall,” Takashi Hongo, a senior fellow at Mitsui Global Strategic Studies Institute, which advises the Japanese government on energy policy, said in an interview in Tokyo.
    Of course, the longer oil remains at its current level, the more likely that the subsidies will be called into question…
    As envoys from more than 190 nations meet in Peru for a round of United Nations-organized negotiations to step up the fight against global warming, there was no sign of waning political support for curbing emissions…

    ***Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which organizes the talks. “The fact that oil is so unpredictable is one of the reasons why we must move to renewable energy, which has a completely predictable cost of zero for fuel.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-01/opec-squeeze-on-oil-spares-renewables-from-energy-turmoil.html

    10

    • #

      The fact that oil is so unpredictable is one of the reasons why we must move to renewable energy, which has a completely predictable cost of zero for fuel.

      Quite true the cost for fuel is zero even when no energy is being generated. And that is very predictable.

      OTOH the cost of zero energy generation is not being accounted for.

      So typical.

      41

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Thousands will die if we don’t pay the UN enough

    Millions will die if we do …

    100

  • #
    PeterS

    Give more money to the UN to stop runaway global warming (which is not existent)? Can someone please explain how come the UN is so blessed as to have the power and knowledge of altering the climate? Are they gods?

    60

  • #
    panzerJ

    Aren’t these people the same people who say that the planet is overpopulated ,could it be that Gaia has a cunning plan to increase CO2 to a level where most people will die from all manner of horrid things like -
    1)Starvation from crop failures because of lack of rain.
    2)Mosquito carried disease from too much rain and warmth.
    3)Storms hurricanes etc that bring too much rain.
    4)Crop failures in the Nth Hemisphere from cold snow and ice.

    I haven’t been able to work out if we are going to perish from lack of water or too much.

    30

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    These thousands will be like the 50 million to 200 million that were supposed to die by 2010.

    30

  • #
    Bobl

    Hmm, it seems to me that if we go from 6 Bn to 7 Bn odd people then the number of deaths is going to increase, since there is a totally 100 percent correlation between birth and death…. Birth is 100 % fatal. Methinks that the increase in deaths between 2000 and 2050 is more likely to be about 80 – 100 million. I would think that if that were constrained to just 250,000 we would have performed a miracle, It’s clearly worse than we thought…..

    250,000 is below the noise level in the population rise just 0.025% of it up to 2050, just one good year in India’s birth rate would eclipse that maybe 5 fold.

    10

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    From the ABC’s Lima Top 5 (my emphasis):

    The Global Climate Fund – designed to help poor countries cope with global warming through mitigation and adaptation projects – has raised $US9.7 billion ($A11.4 billion) from 22 nations, turbo-charged by a $A3.5 billion pledge from the United States and $A1.76 billion from Japan.

    Interesting word association test.
    What verb did the journo use to describe the immense power boosting effect of Japan and USA donations?
    That would be from the world’s first solar-powered gas turbine engine, presumably? :)
    Biting the hand that feeds them and don’t even know it.

    When the climate cash negotiations are getting really intense I will expect the talks to be described as wind-powered.

    10

  • #
    David S

    The global warming movement is like a terrorist organisation and uses sleeper cells to infiltrate our institutions,from the UN,to the EPA,to global governments to media to scientific societies and think tanks,into big oil and big industry. It appears well organised not random. The IPCC is full of greenies. To perpetuate their movement they need to rely on converts to replenish their numbers and use propaganda and indoctrination through schools and universities that they infiltrated years ago.they glorify death and sacrifice and try to convince their followers that through self sacrifice of life styles, living standards and lots of money we will all be eternally blessed .
    Not as gruesome as be headings but just as lethal. It is about time that the UN and the Gw movement was declared a terrorist organisation.

    00