It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global warming will cost world $9 TRILLION

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
This latest and largest study into Global Warming from the British Government is the biggest wake up call to us all regarding the impending World Wide enviromental and economic disaster that Humanity has ever faced.

The time to act is now, today, because tomorrow could very well be to late.

The study just released is believed to be Generating apocalyptic headlines across the Globe.

Global Warming




The world's biggest economic evaluation of climate change says if countries do not act now the world will face a depression worse than that of the 1930s.

The report puts the global cost of global warming and its effects at $A9 trillion - a bill greater than the combined cost of the two world wars and the Great Depression. It represents a fifth of the global economy.

The Stern report, commissioned by the British Government, also says drought and floods could render swaths of the planet uninhabitable, turning 200 million people into refugees to create the largest migration in history.



Can we do it ? Can we stop our addiction to Oil, and Coal, and other nasties ?




posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Lol this website cracks me up ......

The single Largest study into the disastorous effects of Global warming isnt good enough for Current events and gets transferred to the "fragile earth" forum pffft.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
With all the hype around global warming it amazes me that it was completely missed 2 years ago when part of the Atlantic current stopped for 10 days in what was called


Lloyd Keigwin, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts, in the US, described the temporary shutdown as "the most abrupt change in the whole [climate] record".


Source: environment.guardian.co.uk...

See the thread on this issue...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I know it will be popular to blame this problem on "global warming" but this problem has been developing for decades if not centuries. This problem has been building since the ice sheets started melting thousands of years ago. We can hype global warming all we want but the current halting will be the most expensive (in terms of money and lives) natural disaster in modern times.... if not ever.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Global Warming, well what type of global warming do you mean is it the natural warming or the warming caused by greenhouse gasses. The natural cycles of global warming can not be stopped but as far as the man made version well that can not be stopped either because every time someone wants to do something that does not use oil or coal the same tree huggers stop it. You can not put up a windmill because a bat might hit it.You can not go solar because the minerals and metals used in the batteries must be mined and they will not let that happen. most people have no ideal what we even use all of the oil for and would have no thoughts on how to get by without it.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I believe this is the most important news of the Year. I have been waiting for the results of this study for a while now and i know that differant Governments have too.

Number Cruncher, the link to your story is not working for me, i have added another..

news.bbc.co.uk...

I thought a crucial part of the report which adds a great deal of weight to the argument is that..


The study is the first major contribution to the global warming debate by an economist, rather than a scientist.


Very credable report that is very worrying. About the Author.. Sir Nicholas Stern

IMO for a start, America must sign the Kyoto Accord and for that to happen, American people must put pressure on their local M.P (or equivalent).

Once the U.S starts acting pressure can be put onto China to reduce their monumental contributions to the problem.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Kyoto Accord is a joke as is more about world social control than anything. Please stop with the Al Gore thing. If you want to do something then make other countries burn emmisions from factories like we have to in the US so that everyone is on a level playing field. Americans will fight to not let their industries go to other countries because of Kyoto and unproven theories.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Combating Mans global warming contribution is going to be the hardest thing ever.

Australia refuses to sign Kyoto, but has the Argument that both China and Indias (and others i think) contribution to Global warming Increases by more than Australias ENTIRE contribution to Global Warming every single year, and thats a fair comment.

I fear its only going to get worse, until where forced to stop, Record Draughts,Flooding, Cyclones and other disasters will be what stops us, mother nature controls things at the end of the day.

I watched a video on youtube the other day of a GM prototype of a saltwater car, produces enough power to provide enough energy to run several houses electricity! now thats the sort of technology that needs to be flowing off the production line today!



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
$9 trillion is just another drop in the bucket. Aside from that, global warming is nothing but maniac induced confusion over the necessity to procure, obtain and process the world's natural resources so that in effect products may be manufactured in order to benefit the agriculture and transportation industries. This is how food arrives at your grocery store and is why most people in this world are not farmers, ranchers or at all that directly associated with agriculture.

The British new this all to well, as did everyone in the world at the time the British Empire (the first great kindling of globalization) was being assembled. There is no doubt that these things: coal, oil and natural gas are vital, such as though iron ore, coltan, sulfur and a whole host of other resources and minerals ores.

Stick with this: $9 trillion is just another drop in the bucket.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Double post EDIT

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Lol this website cracks me up ......

The single Largest study into the disastorous effects of Global warming isnt good enough for Current events and gets transferred to the "fragile earth" forum pffft.

Two things here:
1) file a complaint if you have issues?
2) seems that "single largest study into the [mythological and overblown] disasterous effects of global warming" is in for a major 'dent'?

Have you read the latest (today's edition) take on this by the NYT, per chance?
Article is entitled: "In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming."




As for this mention:
Global warming will cost world $9 TRILLION, at the rate that global warming propaganda is being dished out, there is no doubt in mind that the $9 trillion dollar figure will soon be surpassed.....



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Yeah, Um... I'm not really very worried about how much money global warming is going to cost. I'm much more concerned about the human costs that no money in the world can recover - the increase in disease, the loss of planetary life (Some of which may have benefitted human existence), the killing of ecosystems etc... What people fail to understand is that money will NOT cure those ills. Money cannot bring back extinct species. Money cannot bring back the rainforests and it's atmosphere cleansing abilities nor the ability for it to regulate global rainfall. Money cannot buy back the health of millions of children who suffer respiratory illness due to pollution piling up in the environment. No, money cannot do any of those things.

In fact, let us explore how money has, in fact, caused global warming!? It is man's inherent greed that propels us toward an unlivable and unsustainable future on this planet. Industrialization, consumption, capitalism etc... The very drive to have more of everything relative to the masses which has caused this situation. Trying to use money to solve the problem is like trying to treat a burn victim with fire. Oh no, the solution lies within each of us. To avoid being burned, we must eliminate the fire, THEN we can begin to treat the burn. In the same way, we must extinguish our desire to consume and to have wealth. Once we understand the source of our illness, then we can treat the symptoms - and not until that time.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
UM buddy all your little graph shows me clear as a bell is that Humans did not live (and probably couldnt) in times of extremely high Carbon Dioxide levels, so it proves nothing.

You need a graph of modern times starting with Humans because thats what counts.

Denyers of global Warming number only a handful now a days and virtually none in the scientific community.

Icecaps melting, Pacific Islands flooding, Australia worst drought in 1000 years, Storms like Katrina, Flooding in India etc etc etc

Of coarse its just scare tactics cause people dont have anything better to do. pffft.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming

...Most public discussions of global warming concentrate on evidence from the last few hundred or, at most, few thousand years. And some climate scientists remain unconvinced that data from the deep past are solid enough to be relevant to the debates.

But the experts who peer back millions of years, though they may debate what their work means, do agree on the relevance of their findings. They also agree that the eon known as the Phanerozoic, a lengthy span from the present to 550 million years ago, the dawn of complex life, typically bore concentrations of carbon dioxide that were up to 18 times the levels present in the short reign of Homo sapiens.

The carbon dioxide, the scientists agree, came from volcanoes and other natural sources, as on Mars and Venus. The levels have generally dropped over the ages, as the carbon became a building block of many rock formations and all living things....


As far as the 9 trillion, how about the new land in northern Canada and other cold climates, that will make money for thouse that build upon it.

You need to look at the past, climate beyond humans, because there is a chance this warming is mearly a cyclical trend.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Halfofone]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

Oh no, the solution lies within each of us. To avoid being burned, we must eliminate the fire, THEN we can begin to treat the burn. In the same way, we must extinguish our desire to consume and to have wealth. Once we understand the source of our illness, then we can treat the symptoms - and not until that time.


With all due respect Your dreaming if you think people are going to take it upon themselves enmasse to halt global warming, this issue has to be solved at Government Level on a World Wide basis and the rules enforced upon there populations.

I just read a very good Article about GW, it was written from a British perspective but deals with the issue broadly and how it has a snow balling effect.

HERE


Sometime in the late 21st century or early 2100s, climate change is likely to reach a new critical mass. As forests die from drought, and as plankton are killed off by rising sea temperatures, these two important "carbon sinks" will no longer be able to absorb carbon dioxide emissions. Increased sea temperatures will also release the vast amounts of methane trapped in the world's oceans.




posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
You need to look at the past, climate beyond humans, because there is a chance this warming is mearly a cyclical trend.




The Cyclical trend you may see in that graph happened over Millions of years, Current Global Warming has happened in a mere drop in the bucket of Time since the Industrial revolution, that doesnt even represent 1 hair on that Graphs above!!!



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
We as a species can handle alot more CO2 for breathing than we currently have in the atmosphere, but i have this Hunch that as we increasingly pump out more C02 we are losing Oxygen, and we cant really do with less Oxygen than we currently get. So im no scientist but im theorizing that the C02 where pumping out is not only causing global warming but could be causing Oxygen reduction.

I cant find to much info on the topic thou, but HERES one.


Oxygen in the upper waters of the North Pacific, an area that accounts for about 40 percent of the world’s oceans, decreased as much as 15 percent in a little less than two decades between the early 1980s and late 1990s.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

"One of the great propaganda icons of the United Nations climate-change machine... is about to get swept away as junk science," writes Terence Corcoran "Financial Post 7/13/04, see www.sepp.org). On July 1, Michael E. Mann, one of the creators of the 1,000- year temperature chart published a corrigendum in Nature, acknowledging that "the listing of the `proxy' data set...contained several errors." After describing the errors, Mr. Mann said that "none of these errors affect our previously published results."

The Canadian researchers who pointed out the errors, Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, stated that the claim that nothing had changed was "categorically false."

In a letter that Nature declined to publish, Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia, wrote: "The "corrected) Mann et al. graph shows that the northern hemisphere temperature index attained its highest values in the early 15th century, and that the 20th century warming cycle has so far only equalled a secondary warm peak that occurred late in the 15th century."

www.oism.org...


So are we really all that responsible for this crisis? Where is the evidence for that?


That did not happen. Instead, according to the United Nations, agricultural production in the developing world has increased by 52% per person since 1961. The daily food intake in poor countries has increased from 1,932 calories, barely enough for survival, in 1961 to 2,650 calories in 1998, and is expected to rise to 3,020 by 2030. Likewise, the proportion of people in developing countries who are starving has dropped from 45% in 1949 to 18% today, and is expected to decline even further to 12% in 2010 and just 6% in 2030. Food, in other words, is becoming not scarcer but ever more abundant. This is reflected in its price. Since 1800 food prices have decreased by more than 90%, and in 2000, according to the World Bank, prices were lower than ever before.

A more balanced view comes from a recent article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This tries to count up both the problems and the benefits of the 1997-98 Niño. The damage it did was estimated at $4 billion. However, the benefits amounted to some $19 billion. These came from higher winter temperatures (which saved an estimated 850 lives, reduced heating costs and diminished spring floods caused by meltwaters), and from the well-documented connection between past Niños and fewer Atlantic hurricanes. In 1998, America experienced no big Atlantic hurricanes and thus avoided huge losses. These benefits were not reported as widely as the losses.

Yet a false perception of risk may be about to lead to errors more expensive even than controlling the emission of benzene at tyre plants. Carbon-dioxide emissions are causing the planet to warm. The best estimates are that the temperature will rise by some 2°-3°C in this century, causing considerable problems, almost exclusively in the developing world, at a total cost of $5,000 billion. Getting rid of global warming would thus seem to be a good idea. The question is whether the cure will actually be more costly than the ailment.

Despite the intuition that something drastic needs to be done about such a costly problem, economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon-dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures. The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on the climate would be minuscule, even if it were implemented in full. A model by Tom Wigley, one of the main authors of the reports of the UN Climate Change Panel, shows how an expected temperature increase of 2.1°C in 2100 would be diminished by the treaty to an increase of 1.9°C instead. Or, to put it another way, the temperature increase that the planet would have experienced in 2094 would be postponed to 2100.
The Kyoto agreement merely buys the world six years

www.economist.com...


So on the whole the environmental movement have been consistently wrong since the big media circus started. Are we really willing to kill millions and deprive hundreds of millions of a good living ( under the current energy paradigm) simply to buy ourselves six years, MAYBE?


There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases
in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or
can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures
or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon
dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.
We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if
the current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has
been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic
effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves
the habitability of colder regions. ‘‘Global warming,’’ an invalidated
hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human production
of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has been proposed (29).

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably
warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends
shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It
does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of
plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life,
which depends upon plants, also flourishes.
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty
vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released
into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the
health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2
level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil,
and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface,
where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living
in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result
of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more
plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a
wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

www.heartland.org...


So basically if we do this properly we are not even hurting the environment as a whole by warming up the place. That would obviously be only if they could actually establish that we have anything at all to do with it; to not even speak of significant our contribution is. Here is the names of a few thousand scientist who dont think there is much science involve in global warming as result of human activity:


Kyoto Accord Protest Quickening
Washington Times, April 22, 1998

by S. Fred Singer

Happy Earth Day, Al Gore! Your much-touted "scientific consensus" on global warming has just been exposed as phony. An unprecedented number of American scientists—more than 15,000, including over 10,000 with advanced academic degrees—have now signed a petition against the climate accord adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.

The petition urges the U.S. government to reject the accord, which tries to force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States. This is in line with a Senate resolution, passed by a 95-to-0 vote in July, which turns down any Kyoto agreement that damages the economy of the United States while exempting most of the world's nations, including such major emerging economic powers as China, India and Brazil.

in signing the petition within a period of less than six weeks, the 15,000 basic and applied scientists expressed their profound skepticism about the science underlying the Kyoto accord. The available atmospheric data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the accord as "proof" of a major future warming.

www.oism.org...


The environmental movement has long ago been hijacked by those ( i don't mean the average ignorant do-gooder who chains himself to a tree) who have not the slightest interest in what happens to the environment as long as they can use it to retard or destroy human development or even civilization.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Those articles are the opinions of a few and you, thousands of Qualified people have differing opinions, and infact dedicate there life to there research that says different and because you grab a couple of links that agree with your chain of thought doesnt make your opinion right (or mine for that matter).



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Those articles are the opinions of a few and you,


Fifteen thousand is not 'a few' by any choice of measurement as far as i am concerned. The fact that they could muster so many scientist to object to the nonsense that is human inspired global warming should tell you just how obvious the lie and bad the science involve really is.


thousands of Qualified people have differing opinions,


And that has never been a guarantee of being near the truth and i do not want to suggest that because fifteen thousand disagrees that that means the rest are wrong. I think the facts will speak for themselves.


and infact dedicate there life to there research that says different


Dedicating your life to a theory or a specific area of research makes no more accurate than a lay person who happens to make a correct guess based on circumstantial evidence... Do you not think that the rest of the scientist dedicated their lives to investigation and arriving at conclusions based on evidence?


and because you grab a couple of links that agree with your chain of thought


Actually i read a few books worth of material to arrive at my current conclusion and this is obviously just some material i think accurate reflects what is in fact happening.


doesnt make your opinion right (or mine for that matter).


Agreed.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join