A total of 46 nations and 2.7 billion people are now at high risk of being overwhelmed by armed conflict and war because of climate change. A further 56 countries face political destabilisation, affecting another 1.2 billion individuals.This stark warning will be outlined by the peace group International Alert in a report, A Climate of Conflict, this week. Much of Africa, Asia and South America will suffer outbreaks of war and social disruption as climate change erodes land, raises seas, melts glaciers and increases storms, it concludes. Even Europe is at risk.'Climate change will compound the propensity for violent conflict, which in turn will leave communities poorer and less able to cope with the consequences of climate change,' the report states.The worst threats involve nations lacking resources and stability to deal with global warming, added the agency's secretary-general, Dan Smith. 'Holland will be affected by rising sea levels, but no one expects war or strife,' he told The Observer. 'It has the resources and political structure to act effectively. But other countries that suffer loss of land and water and be buffeted by increasingly fierce storms will have no effective government to ensure corrective measures are taken. People will form defensive groups and battles will break out.'Consider Peru, said Smith. Its fresh water comes mostly from glacier meltwater. But by 2015 nearly all Peru's glaciers will have been removed by global warming and its 27 million people will nearly all lack fresh water. If Peru took action now, it could offset the impending crisis, he added.

But the country has little experience of effective democracy, suffers occasional outbreaks of insurgency, and has border disputes with Chile and Ecuador. The result is likely to be 'chaos, conflict and mass migration'.A different situation affects Bangladesh. Here climate-linked migration is already triggering violent conflict, says International Alert. Droughts in summer combined with worsening flooding in coastal zones, triggered by increasingly severe cyclones, are destroying farmland.

View: Full Article | Source: The Guardian

Again TOO LITTLE TOO LATE

Those responsible -( earths biggest polluters ) should be held accountable and help these people

it's the moral thing to do > but we are busy chasing oil so that we can pollute some more

The whole thing just angers and sickens me to no end !!

the climate on earth has always changed its not something new and humans are not causing it,thirty-eight of every 100,000 molecules of air in the atmosphere are CO2. That's 380 parts per million. It takes mankind five years to add one molecule per 100,000. So we've got 38 of every 100,000 molecules of air is CO2! You realize how small that is? And it takes five years to add one more molecule. So in five years, it will be a 39 out of every 100,000 molecules. Yet we get this BS on how polluted the planet is.. We didn't cause this and we cant stop it so get over it. This whole global warming thing is just politics as normal every 25 to 30 years we get this BS, and if you want to find out who the culprit is just follow the money. Al Gore what a joke.

It's caused by both.

Why do you think it's accelarating much quicker than previously forecast ?

Do you believe deforestation has no effect ?

Here's more.

What do people have to gain claiming it's man made ?

What's wrong with clean air ?Don't tell me burning fossil fuels are healthy for most living things

Now -what do oil companies have to lose ? Who are the losers here ? You don't believe they have their own propoganda to save their butts er I mean pocketbooks ?

Please read if so inclined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

Well, global warming does appear to be happening. So whatever the cause, we should be looking to how this might effect us, and what we can do to mitigate (or take advantage) of the effects. (which is what the OPA article is all about).

I would challange some of the bold assertions in the OPA. Thus far, we have not had evidence of a trend in increasingly violent storms. I'm not aware of any measurements of rising sea levels (as opposed to computer predictions), or of any country experiencing a problem due to this. Some glaciers are retreating, as in the case of Peru. However, surely this means that mountain precipitation (which would previously have been locked into the glacier) will now simply freely flow down the mountain ? South American rain forests are actually thriving on the higher temperatures, in defience of IPCC computer models. And so on.

We need to do much more research on the likely impacts of higher temperatures. Currently, we are unable to model the behaviour of our Biosphere. We can observe higher temperatures, but not predict their impact. (who, for example, would have predicted that higher temperatures would have actually increased the size of the Antartic ice pack ? Certainly not the IPCC).

Meow Purr.

its not happening quicker than previously thought you are buying into the propaganda machine. For instance I heard the other night that the arctic ice shelf is melting, well it is always melting and if you do some digging you will find out that the shelf in fact has gotten bigger in the last few years.

I mean those damn polluters not only have they caused the extinction of the Dinosaurs and all those Ice Ages, but they refuse to stop giving us the products that we demand. How dare they . I mean come on if Coal wasnt meant to be burned it wouldnt have that quality, Humans are not causing Climate change we are just expriencing one.

PROPOGANDA you say. Ever heard of lobbying ? How about global warming denial lobbying.Think/remember tobacco industry ?

Here goes:

In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the influential Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the GOP, with regard to climate change, that "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view."[15] In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes "back [in] '97, '98, the science was uncertain", but he currently agrees with the scientific consensus.[30]

In 2005, the New York Times reported that Philip Cooney, a former lobbyist and "climate team leader" at the American Petroleum Institute, had "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents."[31] The George W. Bush administration had hired Cooney in 2001 as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, "the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues." The New York Times reported:

"Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions."[31]

The newspaper also claimed that "[e]fforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home." Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job."[15]

The Washington Post reported in June 2007 that Vice President Dick Cheney "has made an indelible mark on the administration's approach to everything from air and water quality to the preservation of national parks and forests." The article also alleged that the Vice President's "unwavering ideological positions" and "deep practical knowledge of the federal bureaucracy" influenced a Bush administration "pro-business drive to ease regulations".[32] In autumn 2001, the admnistration contemplated changing a regulatory portion of the Clean Air Act called "New Source Review" [33] that required older power plants "to install modern pollution controls when they are refurbished in a way that increases emissions."[34] Energy industry officials argued that the Environmental Protection Agency had applied the program to "routine system maintenance and repair activities" and impeded "safe, reliable, and affordable electricity."[35] The Post stated that the administration's changes instigated in August 2003 "allowed some of the nation's dirtiest plants to make major modifications without installing costly new pollution controls."[36] The Vice President had previously argued that "The aim here is efficiency, not austerity" and "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."[37]

The Post also reported:

"It was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, not the personal reasons she cited at the time, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, she said in an interview that provides the most detailed account so far of her departure. ... And in April, the Supreme Court rejected two other policies closely associated with Cheney. It rebuffed the effort, ongoing since Whitman's resignation, to loosen some rules under the Clean Air Act. The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem."[38]

Cheney's connections to the Energy Lobby and to ExxonMobil in particular have fueled speculation that his characterization of climate change science is linked to the "denial industry."[39] In 2000, Cheney’s Energy Task Force, officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group, invited the executives of various major oil companies, including Exxon, Conoco, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell, to consult with the White House regarding the development of a national energy policy, although this was initially denied by the participating companies. [40] Exxon was also personally thanked by the White House for advising President Bush on the Kyoto accords. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:

“In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, ‘POTUS [the president of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.’"[41]

The Government Accountability Project's "Climate Science Watch" has questioned the administration's appointment of officials with private-sector ties to climate change denial:

"Jeffrey Salmon is the Associate Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to moving to DOE, from 1991-2001 he was Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute, a key actor in the global warming disinformation campaign. In 1998 he participated in the development of a now-notorious oil industry-sponsored plan to wage a campaign against the mainstream science community on global warming. Before that, he was senior speechwriter for Dick Cheney, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense. The Office of Science oversees roughly $4 billion a year in DOE-supported research, including a roughly $140 million climate change research budget. What does Salmon do in this position—for example, on matters of climate change research, assessment, and communication?"[42]

Private Sector

After the IPCC released its Feb, 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute reportedly offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees have worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.[43] Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."[15]

The British Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[44][2] In 2006, the British Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."[45]

ExxonMobil has denied the accusations that it has been trying to mislead the public about global warming:

"The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Always ask who & what has something to lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006...petrol.business
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006...thicalliving.g2


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...ent_george_bush

The storms have been worse here in germany and they raised our house insurance.
I have a cousin who is a enviromental researcher/marine biologist/professor in Alaska that does just this. Look up Rolf Gradinger.
When he is here in germany we talk about this because it interests me. He would not lie to me about his research, would he ?
Why are us americans more in denial about this than anyone else in the world ? Kyoto protocol ? Brainwashing ? Blind faith ? 1/3 don't believe it's caused by humans.

I personally believe from researching it that it's caused by both.

But you are right-what can we do about it if at all ?

In the begining of the 19th century a Volcanoe erupted in the SOuth Pacific which resulted in a Mini Ice period around the world. Nature plays a much bigger role then humans can in changing the climate. Climate has changed and will do so in the future. WHat makes you think the weather patterns in the last 50 years are normal?

Key word there is "forecast".

They can't tell me for sure what the weather will be tomorrow or next week but are supposed to tell me what it was 100,000 years ago? Or what it will be 100 years from now?

the weather has changed since i was a kid.. that's all i know for sure..

White House in climate -censorship row

November 3,2007

THE White House has already been accused of gagging the US Environmental Protection Agency and NASA on the subject of global warming. Now the US Centers for Disease Control may have suffered the same fate.

On 23 October, CDC director Julie Gerberding addressed the US Senate on the health effects of global warming. It has emerged that her original speech was cut from 12 pages to six by the White House's Office of Management and Budget, which is authorised to vet presentations to the Senate by government agencies.

Among the passages omitted from the final speech were details of how global warming may affect millions of Americans through more frequent heatwaves, increased air pollution and the spread of waterborne diseases.

Although Gerberding and the CDC say there has been no censorship, others disagree. Senator Barbara Boxer of California wrote to the White House demanding that it release a copy of the original draft, to reveal exactly what was left out. "This isn't a country that should be censoring science," she says. The White House says that some predictions were omitted because they were global rather than US-specific.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...orship-row.html

You are correct

Climate change models, no matter how powerful, can never give a precise prediction of how greenhouse gases will warm the Earth, according to a new study.

The result will provide ammunition to those who argue not enough is known about global warming to warrant taking action.

The analysis focuses on the temperature increase that would occur if levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled from pre-Industrial Revolution levels. The current best guess for this number – which is a useful way to gauge how sensitive the climate is to rising carbon levels – is that it lies between 2.0 C and 4.5 C. And there is a small chance that the temperature rise could be up to 8C or higher.

To the frustration of policy makers, it is an estimate that has not become much more precise over the last 20 years. During that period, scientists have established that the world is warming and human activity is very likely to blame, but are no closer to putting a figure on exactly much temperatures are likely to rise.
Positive feedback

It now appears that the estimates will never get much better. The reason lies with feedbacks in the climate system. For example, as the temperature increases, less snow will be present at the poles. Less snow means less sunlight reflected back into space, which means more warming.

These positive feedbacks accelerate global warming and also introduce uncertainty into estimates of climate sensitivity, say Gerard Roe and Marcia Baker of the University of Washington in Seattle.

What is more, they found that better computer models or observational data will not do much to reduce that uncertainty. A better estimate of sensitivity is the holy grail of climate research, but it is time to "call off the quest", according to a commentary published alongside the paper.
Deep uncertainties

That is likely to fuel attacks by critics in the oil industry and elsewhere who argue against investing in measures like clean energy until more is known about climate change. Others say that we need to act even if climate sensitivity lies at the low end of the scale, since coastal areas would still be threatened by rising seas, for example.

Ultimately, the papers also illustrate the limits to which models, even those produced by powerful supercomputers, can help politicians make decisions.

"This finding reinforces not only that climate policies will necessarily be made in the face of deep, irreducible uncertainties," says Roger Pielke, a climate policy expert at the University of Colorado at Boulder, US. "But also the uncomfortable reality – for climate modellers – that finite research dollars invested in ever more sophisticated climate models offer very little marginal benefit to decision makers."


http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...redictions.html

So almost all of the scientific community on the globe are siding with Al Gore ? :lol

Who cut down all the trees ? Some aliens ? You are telling me this has no effect ?

It's simply caused by both-man made and natural/solar

I feel it kind of explains the rapid changes taking place right now

If you want to talk about cutting down trees we should wipe out pine trees as they add a great deal of co2 to the atmosphere not all trees are good. My main point is we dont have the power to cause global warming anymore than we have the power to stop it and if you think otherwise you are a little full of yourself.

You think this is someting i want to be RIGHT about ????

Whatever tickles your Texas....hmm .......... and makes you sleep better at night


Theses are also full of themselves >>

Joint science academies’ statement 2007

In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states:

It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

this is from the founder of the weather channel who retired so isnt fearfull of losing his job for saying it

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

[...]

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...st-scam-history

the truth of the matter is that this period of earths history since humans have been around has the lowest co2 levels ever and if anything we need to be putting more co2 into the atmosphere to keep us from falling into another ice age. I would much rather have a warmer world than a colder one.

one more thing I was reading about the era of the dinosaurs, did you know the earth was anywhere from 8-10 degrees celcius hotter then than it is now water levels were as much as 20 meters higher at that time. The dinosaurs didnt die out until the ice age hit when it got colder. This is all about money and power nothing more.

Well jeez dmurdock it took you long enough to give a reason for your skepticism.

I'm not a mind reader you know (well not over the internet anyways .

I'll check it out for sure, ok ??

Sorry about that I work on computers and have for the last 30 something years and man this spyware is really got me working all the time. I love this forum just dont seem to have much free time on my hands lately.

Thanks for taking the time and i hope you have a nice weekend at least!!