MARVELOUS. So fortigurn. Show me where it has been explained that giving billions to nations like tuvalu will help. Many pacific islands are growing in size not shrinking. Oops. And areas with rising seas are characterized by tectonic subsidence so back to you. NO ONE has explained how spending more money here will solve the er nonexistent problem or feel free to go back and find the same to prove it. PROVE IT!!! And you dare to speak of reality??? Hah!!!
Why? Is anyone claiming that giving billions to nations like Tuvalu will stop global warming? Do you have any evidence that billions are being given to nations like Tuvalu?
Evidence please. And so what if they are? Are you claiming this is evidence that climate change is not taking place?
Could you please provide any evidence that people are claiming that spending money here will solve the problem of climate change? When you refer to ‘the er nonexistent problem’, are you claiming that anthropogenic climate change is not taking place? I note that as usual you fail to address any of the science whatsoever. This is what proves your views are completely separated from reality.
Ahhhh. You may wish to review the pledges made in copenhagen. Let me know when you find mention of a 30 billion fund and what is for. Gosh. Have you also advised the governments of india china russia canada america brazil south africa that they are as clueless as I? What can thry be thinking?
I note you haven’t actually answered any of my questions. The Copehagen Accord does not involve giving billions to Tuvalu, and is not even legally binding.
Ok fortigun. Cute. Let’s set the parameters. Is global warming a problem? If so what do you want to do about it? Do you deny 30 billion in pledges were made at copenhagen? Regardless of whether it is legally binding (one smirks recalling the great kyoto treaty success) do you agree that this would be a wise use of the funds? Your question pertained to your dismissal of my assertion that anyone was proposing such sdpending not whether it was legally binding. You may be trying to be clever here. Try harder. Much harder.
Presently unable to post links.
Go to google. Type in pacific islands growing in size. You should get two links from bbc and australian from 2010.
I did not say billions to tuvalu only. I said billions to nations plural like tuvalu. What is your response? That no one has proposed doing so? You are wrong.
Hey Freddie boy, maybe you should buy some real estate in Tuvalu? Or even better relocate, the weather should be good and as the island is constantly growing, there will always be new places to explore.
And don’t be rude because, I really think you should put your money where your mouth is. I guess were talking $millions?
Cute steviebike. Let me revisit the argument. Despite past cold and hot periods this hot period is special even though it isn’t. A warmer earth has historically been good. A colder earth has led to[ famine and war. So we must accept that a warmer earth is a disaster even when historical evidence is for the exact opposite. We must destroy the global economy which has done so much to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty AND improve the environment in the most developed countries. Why? to fund ngos to engage in studies that raise awareness and host global talkfests? No? Then tell me in 30 years of dire disaster that is pushed back just as frequently as the next millenarian movement. What has all the discussion endless research and tedious conferencing achieved??? What? Consensus? Ha!
fred I note you are still failing to answer my questions. Do you intend to or not?
Yes.
Cut carbon emissions and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
Not at all. What I deny is your claim that billions of dollars were offered to nations such as Tuvalu. You haven’t showed that billions of dollars were offered to nations such as Tuvalu, whether pledged or sent (makes no difference to the argument).
Yes.
I questioned your claim that anyone had proposed such spending as you had asserted; that billions of dollars were going to be just given to nations such as Tuvalu, in order to ‘fix’ global warming. To date you have provided no evidence that anyone had proposed such spending as you had asserted.
These were discussed previously on this forum (see related discussion here). At that time you raised them as evidence that global warming was not happening. You were found to be misrepresenting them completely, and you were corrected. You are now misrepresenting them yet again. The first time could be put down to ignorance, error, or intellectual dishonesty. Now that you’ve repeated the misrepresentation, I’m less inclined to be charitable.
What do we find when we look at the links to which you refer? We find that:
- The land mass area is growing due to accumulation of coral and sediment
- Nevertheless, habitation of the islands is still under threat due to rise in sea levels
- The scientists reporting on the increase in land mass area ‘believe further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia’
So once again we find the facts are the complete opposite of what you claim.
Fotigurn fortigurn. Are we pledging 30 billion or not? And pray tell IF we send it what good will it do? Now you and the alarmists cite the horrors of global warming but then do not want to see any natural adaptation such as the growth of coral. If nature isd adapting admirably. Where is the problem justifying billions and urgent action???
I see you once again failed to address any of my questions.
I have already answered this question.
I refer you to the text of the Copenhagen Accord; when you’ve actually read it, you’ll understand.
Quite apart from the fact that this is not an ‘adaption’ to anything, what makes you say we don’t want to see it? I’m perfectly happy seeing it.
What makes you think that ‘nature is adapting admirably’? In any case, it’s the fact that humans can’t adapt in time that’s the issue. If you actually read the articles to which you refered, you would understand where the money is going, what it’s being used for, and why it’s being used. Once more I see you avoiding any actual engagement with the science. This demonstrates you know full well the science is settled and you can’t argue with it.
So tell me where is the money going? What do the articles say? I see it everyday. That is why I don’t believe.
If you read the Copenhagen Accord, you will find out. If you actually read the articles to which you refer, you will find out what they say. Your deliberately avoidance of the science, lack of knowledge of the content of the very articles to which you refer, and refusal to answer questions put to you, proves to me that you are well aware that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, and you don’t want to admit it.
You keep repeating read the articles. The ones that I not you have posted. In fact what have you posted except yhe superstitious sicilian sorceresses equivalent of muttering darkly the evil eye the evil eye. My article states (oh how funny that you cite this now as you were denying that any 30 billion was involved at all. Suddenly conceding and ever so quietly?) That the money isd going to these nations to help them adapt to climate change. What does that involve? So you know? Remember I am not the one sounding the alarm bell. Growing not sinking. Who cares why? The point is that the disaster has NOT occurred despite all the pronouncements of time is running out. Funny how the deadlines for disaster keep getting pushed back by five years every er five years.
Why don’t you make your point EVER? What is it that you think that the Copenhagen Accord says that will win your argument for you? What? You keep pointing to the accord but you seem unaware of its provisions yourself. The US$30 billion is only a pledge and not a commitment? Is that what the UN is saying? now that the countries are not turning over the cash. What will these billions do in nations such as Tuvalu (note this is not referring to Tuvalu only)? Set up government administrations to “study” the problem? Hire a bunch of NGOs to “study” the problem and “report” back? before an “initiative” is “launched” to “raise awareness” and “organize the community?” I have seen these. I have seen 100 of them every day and guess what? if the nations involved cannot organize on their own to handle planting mangroves or relocate villages from rising tides, then what can the billions do? and why does it keep going to fund so many conferences to “discuss” the issue? What has that solved? So in 30 years, again, again, again, I ask you, for all the fuss about global warming and all the money devoted to research and conferences and the like, what has been accomplished? the one effort that led to a treaty, Kyoto specifically, is now a colossal failure as everyone except the EU has pulled out. And why is the EU still so involved? Because it used the artificially beneficial 1990 benchmarks that came from the collapse of Communist Era highly polluting industries. What happened to acid rain? Again, MORE development not retarding development through “well-meaning” (and they always are when it is your side aren’t they?) feel-good but ultimately bad policies is the key to protecting the environment and dealing with the natural disasters that are going to occur whether the world warms. WORSE would be a cooling world. Look at the instability of the 1000 to 1250 era and then again from 1600 to 1850. There were far more problems then. Look at the relatively warm periods of the 1300s and how agriculture spread. Look at the green revolution of the 1950s and 1960s but the disastrous droughts in the Sahel when the world cooled during the 1970s. These dastardly droughts were to be more of a problem during WARMING periods but hmmmmm why then the worst droughts ever in the 1970s? huh? cat got your tongue? All of this global warming shit is more of the same communist Third Worldism redistributive policies aimed at taking from the productive to reward the most fucked up for being “genuine” and “marginalized.” This is the same plonk once again packaged in a new bottle but it tastes the same: like shit. Wake up and smell the coffee… or at least the shit that is being shoveled.
From Wikipedia… I would like to quote this section… this is ALL that the world can come up with for such an urgent problem… read on…
[quote]Criticism
Concerns over the accord exist; some of the key criticisms include:
The accord itself is not legally binding[7]
No decision was taken on whether to agree a legally binding successor or complement to the Kyoto Protocol.[2]
The accord sets no real targets to achieve in emissions reductions.[2][21]
The accord was drafted by only five countries.[7]
The deadline for assessment of the accord was drafted as 6 years, by 2015.
The mobilisation of 100 billion dollars per year to developing countries will not be fully in place until 2020.
There is no guarantee or information on where the climate funds will come from.[21]
There is no agreement on how much individual countries would contribute to or benefit from any funds.[2]
COP delegates only “took note” of the Accord rather than adopting it.[7]
The head of the G77 has said it will only secure the economic security of a few nations.[6]
There is not an international approach to technology.
Forgets fundamental sectoral mitigation, such as transportation.
It shows biases in silent ways such as the promotion of incentives on low gas-emitting countries.[/quote]
Find out what? Why don’t you define what I will find out? I assume that you mean how the money will be spent. How will it be spent specifically? Humor me and spell it out. I don’t know. I think that I can guess based on past useful efforts (cough cough).
I have. What’s your point. That the islands are growing up and that sea levels could still be rising? Perhaps, but why is this so varied? I get that sea level increases will not be the same all over the world but even within very small localities, this is not. Perhaps, tectonics? as has been the case since Charles Darwin discovered that sinking atolls are from volcanoes and that coral grows upward to maintain its closeness to sunlight.
You bang on and on about the science more than a Baptist minister about the Bible. Funny that. Okay, let’s assume that the science (and I do not agree) PROVES that all or most of the increase in temperatures is caused by manmade greenhouse gases. Okay, my key point still comes back to WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? I look at Kyoto, I look at Copenhagen and I see failures. Do you see something that I do not? Shall we even discuss Durban? So over 30 years what has all the money spent on this issue achieved? and your suggestion (one cannot tell) appears to be the science, the articles demand that we spend more of the same? or what are you trying to say? You never say and you certainly have spent a lot of time not saying it.
They are they articles which you cited, and which you implied you had read. It became apparent that you haven’t read them at all.
This is complete nonsense. I did not deny that any 30 billion was involved. If you want to know the answer to ‘What does that involve?’, I suggest you read the articles.
Growing but still being eroded and swamped by rising sea levels which will make them uninhabitable.
What disaster? Which deadlines for disaster? You’re just making things up.
Yes. Read it and find out. I am not going to do your homework for you. You’ve been exposed as having appealed to articles you haven’t read, and misrepresented.
No, that the islands are growing out (not ‘up’), that sea levels are still rising, and that the islands will become uninhabitable if sea levels continue to rise. You deliberately misrepresented the articles as saying that the islands are rising up out of the sea, that sea levels are not rising, and that habitation of the islands is not threatened by rising sea levels.
I refer you again to the discussion which was had with you previously on this topic (see the link I already gave), which explained this in considerable detail. You ignored it then, and now you’re pretending it never even happened.
See my previous answer to that question.
Failures because of attitudes such as those you champion.
[quote]Low-lying Pacific islands 'growing not sinking’By Nick Bryant
A new geological study has shown that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.
The islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, because of coral debris and sediment.
One of the authors of the study, featured in the magazine the New Scientist, predicts that the islands will still be there in 100 years’ time.
However he says it is not clear whether many of them will be inhabitable.
Prognosis ‘incorrect’
In recent times, the inhabitants of many low-lying Pacific islands have come to fear their homelands being wiped off the map because of rising sea levels.
But this study of 27 islands over the last 60 years suggests that most have remained stable, while some have actually grown.
Using historical photographs and satellite imaging, the geologists found that 80% of the islands had either remained the same or got larger - in some cases, dramatically so.
They say it is due to the build-up of coral debris and sediment, and to land reclamation.
Associate Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University, who took part in the study, published in the journal Global and Planetary Change, says the islands are not in immediate danger of extinction.
“That rather gloomy prognosis for these nations is incorrect,” he said.
“We have now got the evidence to suggest that the physical foundation of these countries will still be there in 100 years, so they perhaps do not need to flee their country.”
But although these islands might not be submerged under the waves in the short-term, it does not mean they will be inhabitable in the long-term, and the scientists believe further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia.
One scientist in Kiribati said that people should not be lulled into thinking that inundation and coastal erosion were not a major threat.[/quote]
Are the islands disappearing now? No. Could they in the future? possibly. But we were told by climate alarmists that they were disappearing already and that is not the case. How am I misreading this?
IN ADDITION to the comments noted in this article, it has been pointed out that much of the Pacific is subject to tectonic plate movements, severe ones. Those are accounting for SOME of the subsidence NOT rising sealevels.
So explain to me how I am drawing the wrong conclusions from any of this?
Did I say we were giving $30 billion to nations LIKE Tuvalu? yes. And then you said we are not giving billions to Tuvalu. Who is misreading? Then, I asked whether this would lead to any benefit, to which you suggested that I was not reading the articles that I was citing. The article stated that the $30 billion would be used to help nations adapt to climate change. Okay. What does “help adapt to climate change” mean? I don’t know. Do you? I can see that you are a true believer. And now cue the doctors used to say that smoking was healthy argument. That is what you true believers do isn’t it? Smirk. Double smirk.