100m to die by 2030 if climate action fails: report

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by daaskapital
 


You know, just because a report says it, doesn't make it true. I very much doubt that 100 million people are going to die because of climate change. More likely, they'll have to relocate from islands and coastal areas, which isn't as big a problem as it sounds like. Human population centers tend to grow along coasts, so inland areas are left relatively bare.


Well, that would be true if sea levels were rising, but they are actually falling a little.

I doubt Al Gore would have bought an oceanfront estate in California if he was really concerned.


it's on a hill smartie




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I am not sure if carbon credits will save lifes or not and I tend to agree with what you are saying. I am aware that the carbon credit schemes are open to manipulation and that they can be used in the same way money is to control the development of nations. Carbon credits work within a system and within that system they are the correct things to use. It might give us some more borrowed time.

The bigger problem is that the system we have in place is flawed. One way or another unless it is changed it will destroy our biosphere. We need to change how we view each other and our relationship with the earth. We continue to try and apply technocentric solutions to our problems. But it is our technology that has created these problems in the first place.

We should be stewards of the planet tending for her and protecting her for our future generations. Our belief that nature and ourselves is somehow different exacerbates the problems. We are not separate from nature. We are nature.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


You might as well ask the sun not to shine, a fish not to swim, and a sparrow not to fly.

Mankind is destructive. Sure you and I and even many others might not be, the majority however is. The majority care only for themselves and their immediate surroundings. If it does not affect them in the right here and now they do not see or understand it.

It is true we all need to see things differently, but I think a brick wall would move faster.

That being said the carbon tax is nothing more than a for profit of the already rich scheme. I also think each side is taking their findings to the extreme and no one is giving the true results of what is happening with climate change.

The biggest part of the climate change is natural in my opinion. It is unstoppable. Our best bet might be to figure out a way for the human species to survive, we must adapt. It could be the Earth feels it is our time to be removed as a species. Each time the Earth has had drastic climate change there has been mass extinction, in some cases nearly every living thing was removed from the face of the Earth.

Raist



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


At the risk of stating the obvious, we MUST survive.

The question becomes, can we actually expect public policy makers (as they currently exist) to assist us towards that end... or will they only care for themselves? A genuine question because if the obvious answer is 'obvious' we then have to determine how WE will survive as they do virtually nothing to help the situation.

THAT'S a whole other can of worms.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I certainly understand the we must survive concept, the sad truth is though that is up to nature and we also have to understand we do not have that kind of control. Mankind may survive, however it will have to be a different mankind than we are now. As it is I do not see mankind surviving the next mass extinction. It goes back to my saying one might as well ask a fish not to swim. Sure there are some of us who see the big picture, the majority however care only for their personal bubble.

As for our policy makers. I have even less hope of them caring than the average person. I see them doing everything they can with their money and power to save their own hides at the expense of the rest of us. I see them stepping on our heads to get above water themselves. I hate to sound so negative on this but history has shown that this is true in lesser catastrophic events. When something big and bad really happens the average person is screwed.

That though as you say is another can of worms


Another way to look at this though is say that we can stop, slow, or lessen the natural climate change that is taking place. In the past the climate changes removed certain life forms so that others could take their place and advance forward. Nature has always found a way to adapt life and make it stronger.

If we stop, slow, or lessen the climate change we will have stopped nature from doing what nature does. I believe nature does what it does so that the Earth keeps moving so that the Earth stays alive. If we stop nature from doing what it is doing we could in a sense bring the Earth to its knees and cause it to die sooner eventually destroying us regardless.

It is sort of one of those darned if you do and darned if you don't type of things.

Raist



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Only 100m? We need to add another 0 to that # as we are too many, then we'd be making a dent in the excess population of genetically mediocre human.

If it gets warm enough we'll lose AK and CA here in the US. Double bonus as we'd be less likely to see tepid movie remakes, unoriginal original stories AND rid ourselves of the Palins.

Doubleplusgood in fact!

Ford Excursions for EVERYONE! Let's do our part to save world by ending Man!


Derek



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 

100m to die by 2030 if climate action fails: report


Pure B.S.

Has anyone actually read this crap? Take a look at the source:
daraint.org...
daraint.org...

1st, consider that by 2030 the world population will increase by 1 Billion(2 billion births - 1 billion deaths)!www.un.org...

2nd, consider that "global warming" will not affect the life expectancy of all people, everywhere.
As many lifespans are as likely to increase as to decrease; and, why not more?

3rd, DARA says that 100 million deaths wiil be due to climate change; but, everybody has to die of something.
Their report provides no objective support that that something will be “climate change,” yet they call it (repeatedly) "a leading cause of death."


In {the] absence of catastrophic climate change and given historical trends, about a billion people will die by 2030. Similar calculations show that about two million will be be born: a surplus of one billion. Since DARA’s moral calculus is merely numbers of bodies, to make its case it has to show how its model changes these background rates, including the births. Do they mean 100 million more than the one billion scheduled will die? Or do they mean the cause of death of the 100 million the billion will be put down to climate change? Or is it some combination? How many of the two million to be born won’t be? Or will births increase? How many people will live longer because of climate change? Or do they claim that every human must live a shorter life (something that is extraordinarily impossible).

www.thegwpf.org...

If you read the DARA report critically, it is little more than redistributionist demagoguery.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Think about this ..."five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease."

Is it true? Yes. Is it accurate? Not really.

This is a true statement, up to a point. More accurately, it could be stated that 10 percent of annual deaths worldwide are blamed on a combination of air pollution, hunger and disease. According to WHO, pollution causes 2 million PREMATURE deaths annually outdoors. (800,000 of those are from indoor pollution, not fossil fuels)

What kills the other 98% prematurely? They really don't seem to care. Do they?

Why are we NOT proposing a multi-trillion dollar taxation scheme that will destroy economies and cause massive hunger in order to stave off the OTHER 98% of premature deaths????

Maybe the 40-50 million annually aborted babies were considered premature deaths. I don't know, but a billion dollars in birth control every year would save one billion dead people over the next two decades. The money saved on abortions would cover the cost of prevention ten times over.

What's that? That's not the point? They don't CARE about 50,000,000 dead babies a year?
A billion dead babies in the next twenty years and they don't mind at all?

Then why do they care about a few million a year from pollution?

All right let's look at another assertion.

"Climate is changing."

This is a fact.

One problem, we didn't start it, and we can't stop it.

A trillion years of extremely radical climate change will not be thwarted by humans.

The notion that we can stop the earth from changing is hubris.

Mount Pinatubo put more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in a week than mankind has in recorded history. Hundreds of active volcanoes continue to do so annually. That pesky star only eight light minutes away from your front door might have a few things to say about your local weather as well. Face it, the planet will bulldoze any effort humanity makes to "stop it" from changing.

Might as well face the truth, we must adapt to the changing environment and quit whining. Use a little money now to change ourselves and learn to live with our planet instead of taxing everyone straight to hell in order to "stop" something that is unstoppable.

Look at the real numbers and the real priorities. It's not about saving lives or "saving" the planet.

It's about taxing your very existence. You and every child, grand child and great grand child you will ever have.

Beyond that, the empire will likely be a one world dictatorship under a common currency that will tax you for exhaling co2 until you can no longer pay. Then they will terminate you as a useless commodity. You will no longer be fired from your job. You will simply be aborted.

Yeah buddy. Go ahead and push that carbon tax. Let the rest of the world charge you a mint for having the temerity to breathe. Then they will kill you for not being able to support yourself.

Don't believe me? Don't think government would be so cruel and uncaring as to kill you for being unwanted?

50,000,000 dead babies a year can't be wrong.


edit on 29-9-2012 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 



...So, is anyone scared yet?


Nope, not scared at all, not whatsoever, not in the slightest bit. If you are - I suggest moving to higher ground and a colder climate so you can live out the rest of your life more "comfortable' for you (or whateva).

p.s. would not about that many people (~100m) die ANYWAY regardless of gullible warming?

*snore*



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
This talk is bull#.... Earth is a closed system so there will never be ANYTHING what so ever as eternal growth... Not peoplewise, not ecologically and most definitely not economically. It simply is not possible.........

The only thing we need to worry about is surviving ourselves.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by flice
.........

The only thing we need to worry about is surviving ourselves.


Truer words are rarely spoken.

I believe that there are many MANY very important and powerful people who are prepared well beyond anything we can imagine. We have seen the gargantuan seed-banks... the consolidation of "ownership" of freshwater aquifers around the world... the "rights" to resources and infrastructure... the monumental underground facilities, all maneuvered economically or legally into their hands.

They are not planning on dying out.

Which to me means, we are on our own... and not expected to survive (some would say they plan on our deaths.) For most it is not a personal/power thing... it's just they deem themselves worthy and "the rest" are not part of the equation.

I contend we must survive - without them or their "institutional" help.

Step one: Get off the planet (and away from the gatekeepers.)

Step two: something else...

Step Three: Profit. (some of you will get that
)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I love all the armchair experts weighing in on one of the most complicated, diverse, and unilateral topic in all of science.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by flice
Earth is a closed system.


Factually inaccurate. Tho I assume you were not being literal?



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Legion2024
 


The attitude that we measly humans can't affect such a big thing as a planet is one of the ways to deny that we can and do. Think about what bacterial and viral infections do to a large human. Then realize that there are 7 billion humans on this planet. It has been documented that we have made several species extinct. The documentation that we can affect the climate is pretty good. If people couldn't affect the planet, why do they bother to seed clouds?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join