Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Climate woes kill 300,000

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 May 2009
THE "silent crisis" of climate change is causing suffering for hundreds of millions of people a year, it was warned yesterday.
Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan described global warming as the "greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time" as he launched a report that estimates rising temperatures already account for 300,000 deaths a year. The research, published by the Global Humanitarian Forum warns that by 2030 the death toll could rise to almost 500,000 a year.

Most of the deaths occur as a result of long-term environmental degradation, leading to malnutrition and disease, while some are the result of weather-related disasters.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 May 2009 9:37 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

Carolyn 1,

30/05/2009 02:49:04
The Greatest threat to humanity isn't global warming, oops me bad, climate change.

the greatest threat to humanity is from hunger and food crisis in poor countries that can cause government collapse and spill over into neighboring countries.

Hunger is exacerbated by rising oil prices and just the bare bone fact that there is not enough food to go around. That the US is not going to have the money next year to feed the 27 countries who need food is going to make this ongoing crisis even worse

Interesting that he calls it environmental degradation...
That's not climate change...
its caused by a government raping the environment to industrialize for profit. Venezuela is a good example. China another.
2

sicasapig,

turra 30/05/2009 08:04:48
wonder how many monsanto have managed to kill in africa by
now without climate change
3

,

30/05/2009 08:33:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Unimpressed one,

30/05/2009 09:06:00
This is a fcking disgrace - the head of the UN claiming a non-existent threat is the severest facing mankind. Malaria, HIV/AIDS? With the loony claim this week that this farce is a bigger threat than cholera and nuclear weapons, and that we should be painting all roofs white, the greatest threat to humanity is the highly contagious climate change hysteria.
5

seanie,

30/05/2009 09:14:11
The American Physical Society;

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
6

seanie,

30/05/2009 09:14:25
The Royal Society;

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable."
7

seanie,

30/05/2009 09:14:41
A Joint Science Academies’ statement;

http://www.icsu-africa.org/Resource_centre/Globalresponseclimatechange.pdf

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
8

seanie,

30/05/2009 09:14:58
The American Association for the Advancement of Science;

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
9

seanie,

30/05/2009 09:15:11
A statement from The Royal Meteorological Society;

http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332

"The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is unequivocal in its conclusion that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing significantly to these changes. The evidence, from not just one source but a number of different measurements, is now far greater and the tools we have to model climate change contain much more of our scientific knowledge within them. The world’s best climate scientists are telling us its time to do something about it."
10

seanie,

30/05/2009 09:15:27
The Geological Society;

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/null/lang/en/page1022.html

"We therefore add our voices to those urging more serious attention, and action, from national and international bodies. The central problem is one of the massive transfer of carbon from beneath the ground into the atmosphere, caused by humanity’s enormous demands for energy, and current dependence on fossil fuels to supply by far the greatest part of this energy."

and...

"We urge serious, and immediate, consideration of these issues. The dangers posed by climate change are no longer merely possible and long-term. They are probable, imminent, and global in scope."
11

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 30/05/2009 09:17:36
The original report is here:

http://www.ghf-geneva.org/index.cfm?uNewsID=157
12

seanie,

30/05/2009 09:29:16
And the latest science is suggesting that, if anything, climate change is an even greater problem than previously thought.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI2863.1

"The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.2°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study."

If their projections are anywhere close to being correct, that's catastrophic.

13

phakebrill,

The Digital Sprawl 30/05/2009 09:31:20
Global warming is caused by our sun. There is an abundance of evidence for this. All the evidence you need can be found when you look at the history records. Don't believe this rubbish that global warming is caused by man. I recommend people take a look at the Penn and Teller Bullsh*t series which can be found on youtube.
14

Unimpressed one,

30/05/2009 09:42:23
Seanie, when are you going to realise that all this alarmist rubbish you are quoting is based on model projections which are, to use the technical jargon, pure sh*te. There is NO evidence that humans are changing the climate, let alone we are facing a 'climate catastrophe'.

Some of us are old enough to remember the 'global threats' that were going to finish us off by the year 2000. We're still here, the only thing that's changed is the tune and the new generation singing along with it.
15

kp1946,

30/05/2009 09:43:00
In the1820s the Bell Witch of Tennessee made numerous predictions all of which have proven correct - the American Civil War, the emancipation of slaves, the rise of the US as a wiorld power, WW1, WW2. The only remaining prediction, which would have made no sense at the time but does now, is that civilisation would end with the rapid heating of the Earth, followed by a huge explosion. And here we are, heading for 2012.... !
16

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 30/05/2009 09:53:37
#13 phakebrill claims:

"Global warming is caused by our sun. There is an abundance of evidence for this."

Then maybe you would like to produce some evidence?

If you can provide evidence that the sun is responsible for the global warming experienced in the last few decades (since 1975 for example) then you will have managed to do something that no-one else has yet done. Total solar insolation has decreased slightly in recent decades - how then can it cause temperatures to rise?

Meanwhile, here is a graph of average global temperature and sunspots for the last 100 years:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1908/to:2008/scale:1000/offset:10/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1908/to:2008/offset:-600/scale:1

And here is a graph of temperature anomalies (x100) against atmospheric CO2 levels:

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/MyHTML2.gif
from:
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html

Finally, here is a graph of temperature, CO2 and sunspots since 1850.

So, again, where is the evidence that the sun is responsible for warming since 1975?



Finally,
17

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 30/05/2009 09:56:43
Sorry, I managed to mangle the last bit of the above post. Here is another go:

"Finally, here is a graph of temperature, CO2 and sunspots since 1850.":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

So, again, where is the evidence that the sun is responsible for warming since 1975?
18

seanie,

30/05/2009 11:00:34
The evidence that humans are changing the climate is overwhelming.

That's why every national and international scientific institution of any relevant standing affirms AGW.

19

tati,

germany 30/05/2009 12:00:10
The report is worse than fiction, it is a lie.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/a-methodological-embarassment-5314
20

phakebrill,

The Digital Sprawl 30/05/2009 12:38:46
Slioch, the material you are quoting is hardly academic. The author of the website even states:

"I am not an academic researcher and hence have no need for formal references. However, if you've found this site useful, an informal 'mention in dispatches' and a Web link wouldn't go amiss.
This cuts both ways, however: The algorithms used on this site have not been formally peer reviewed and hence should not be used unverified for academic publication (and certainly not for policy- making!). This site is only intended to help find interesting directions for further research to be carried out more formally."

Anyway, I suggest you go and do some real research. I've pointed folk to the Penn and Teller Bullsh*t documentary. Other people might want to also look here:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/indexg.htm

Here:
http://www.globalwarminghype.com
http://www.globalwarminghype.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry070314-194747

Here:
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=34

Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDi_u0dcig

I COULD GO ON AND ON...

THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 LEVELS AND EARTH'S TEMPERATURE! WAKE UP!

So to summarise Slioch, check your sources before you go posting STUPID graphs that have no real substance. The author of those graphs specifically STATES that the graphs SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR ACADEMIC PUBLICATION/POLICY MAKING. YOU'VE JUST MADE YOURSELF LOOK REALLY DUMB. Congrats.
21

eyeswider,

30/05/2009 12:53:41
IPCC Third Assessment Report: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (TAR, p.774.)
22

eyeswider,

30/05/2009 13:16:08
"What is surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth." — Richard P. Feynman
23

Anti American,

Anywhere but America 30/05/2009 13:28:31
I see the dopey psycho at #1 knows better than all the experts.
24

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 30/05/2009 13:42:52
#20 phakebrill

It is usually a sure sign that when someone resorts to large numbers of capital letters and refer to evidence which they don't like as "STUPID", then they have nothing of substance to say. So it is with yourself.

I asked you for evidence that the sun was responsible for recent global warming. You had claimed that there is an "abundance" of such evidence, yet only one of the websites (3.) to which you refer addresses the issue and then only marginally .

1. Your first reference gives a list of nine graphs and associated comments. There is nothing in it that addresses the issue of what has caused global average temperatures to rise since 1975. If you think there is, state it specifically and I'll explain why you are wrong.

2. Your second reference is a discussion of Carl Wunsch's contribution of the C4 Climate Swindle programme.

3. Your third reference provides a graph of sunspot cycle length/CO2/temperatures. But for some reason the sunspot cycle length graph stops in 1984, only 9 years into the current warming period of 34 years. Any guesses as to why that might be? Such as because, thereafter, the correlation breaks down?

4. Your final link is to a silly YouTube talking about the benefits of CO2 to plant growth.

Note that showing that other factors - such as total solar insolation or sunspot length - has influenced global temperatures does NOT negate the proposition that CO2 influences temperature. The problem that AGW deniers have to face is to explain the global temperature changes in recent decades without reference to CO2. No-one has done that, and none of the links you give even addresses the problem.

As for your criticism that the "material you are quoting is hardly academic": precisely the same applies to what you have posted. But at least my links were relevant to the question in hand - whether CO2 increases are responsible to recent temperature increases - and the data all come from reputable and well-established and p
25

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 30/05/2009 13:46:30
Contd.
and the data all come from reputable and well-established and published sources. And that data is also up to date: it doesn't suddenly stop in 1984 like the sunspot cycle length data to which you link does, when the correlation that it is trying to show breaks down.
26

seanie,

30/05/2009 19:58:39
No correlation between CO2 levels and the earth's temperature?

Try looking at the last 400,000 years;

http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11640/dn11640-1_800.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/acpp/images/co2_temp_unep.jpg
27

Taz,

The Land of the Free 30/05/2009 20:17:56
Kofi Annan should be in prison doing hard time.
28

yockel,

30/05/2009 20:48:38
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
29

seanie,

30/05/2009 20:53:03
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's physical properties and role as such have been accepted science for over a century; since about 1860.

CO2 levels have risen signifcantly since the onset of industrialisation; from around 280ppm to around 385ppm. There is no scientific dispute on this.

That increase is due to human activity. We know this from the entirely uncontroversial fact that burning fossil fuels creates CO2, and the equally obvious fact that we've been burning a lot of fossil fuels since the onset of industrialisation.

The isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere also confirms this.

That an increase in C02 should generally lead to an increase in temperature is not some wild and extravagant speculation. It's exactly what accepted scientific understanding tells us to expect.

It might be possible that there is some completely unknown and as yet to be discovered mechanism that is responsible for the warming trend. But that seems unlikely since we'd also have discover some hitherto completely unknown reason why the increase in CO2 isn't causing it.

Because basic physics tells us IT SHOULD BE.
30

2dogs in D.C.,

30/05/2009 20:53:57
Sunny beaches,does this mean we're all gonna DIE?
31

seanie,

30/05/2009 20:58:10
No. We're all gonna die regardless.

But a 5.2°C rise in average temperatures by the end of the century would wipe out life on earth as we know it. We're talking mass extinciton.

32

yockel,

30/05/2009 20:59:39
#32 So?
33

seanie,

30/05/2009 21:00:34
That's the weirdest comment I've read for awhile.

34

yockel,

30/05/2009 21:02:41
It's a circular refferrence it should have crashed the programme
35

2dogs in D.C.,

30/05/2009 21:04:42
So long as it don't crash my car...
36

yockel,

30/05/2009 21:11:03
Mass extinction, is that a euphimism for fusion power?
37

2dogs in D.C.,

30/05/2009 21:11:24
But,really,#31-seanie,what's the projected time line before the end? Is it nigh? Or do we have time for one more drink before the final shout.Don't get hot,now,I've a bad habit of making light of serious matters.And,for what it's worth,I believe in climatic change,except I think we find ourselves in the final stages of inter ice age.Winter,here,although lower on snow,was colder and lasted far longer,than normal.
38

yockel,

30/05/2009 21:17:15
It's all to do with entropy.
As we humans convert more and more high level energy into low level heat which is disipated to the cosmos, CO2 is the only thing keeping us going. By insulating the world and inhibiting disipation it is delaying our final and inevitable demise. The ultimate ice age is comong sooner or later.
39

seanie,

30/05/2009 21:19:04
Well here's a chance to put your critical reading skills to the test.

Try reading post #31 again and see if you can spot some kind of reference to a timescale.
40

2dogs in D.C.,

30/05/2009 22:23:24
End of the century.Guess we've got time for that last drink with our grandkids.Well,at last,something to look foreward to.
41

seanie,

30/05/2009 22:57:22
Is that it?

Potentially wiping out life in earth as we know it is just fine since we can have some fun before it happens?

That's a very dispiriting point of view you have.

I tend to hope that we as human beings, with all the remarkable tings we are capable of, can actaully confront the problem and overcome it.

42

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 30/05/2009 23:11:29
Observed Universe shows remarkable organisation ex Plasma still constituting most of it. We get stars planets, spiral galaxies, quasars etc bursting forth and even humans at occasional genius level. Electric Universe is the best predictive model we have. Meanwhile orthodox astrophysics is still looking for black holes or a black hole at the center of it and spending $billions on it. The big bang, nebular accrection and dubious redshifts are still promoted in its journals. There's entropy, Jim, but the place is still fizzing with energy.

Time may be speeding up though I seem to be going slower. Cosmic consciousness may be phase evolving but at my distant backwater burg I wonder.

We still burn coal and oil because all demonstrated non polluting technologies are been militarised and secretised (since 1980). Arguably sane intelligent life would generally avoid the place, but us Scots should of all people understand this and organise, mobilise, pray for divine intervention! So long as a 100 of us remain alive!
43

Taz,

The Land of the Free 31/05/2009 19:22:16
I blame the Americans
44

John Cameron,

St Andrews 31/05/2009 20:01:45
Could this be the same Kofi Annan who was directly responsible for holding back the UN's Canadian troops poised to intervene in The Rwandan Massacre. Who then covered up an extensive series of rape charges launched against various officials of the UN High Commission for Refugees? Who, along with his son Kojo, was up to his armpits in the Oil for Food Scam? If he be the same person, of course we should be believe any baloney he cares to hyperventilate about the Global Warming Hysteria. Perhaps we should suggest he be given yet another Nobel Prize for Peace.
45

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 01/06/2009 07:09:01
#44 John Cameron

That global warming is a serious problem that requires concerted global action is a conclusion reached by science, not by politicians, diplomats or celebrities.

Unfortunately, dealing with the problem requires action from politicians, good bad and indifferent, as well as everybody else.

Because some of the politicians involved are imperfect has no relevance whatsoever to the truth of AGW. But then, those in denial about AGW will use any excuse, however ridiculous, to try to avoid facing reality: thus it is with you, John.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.