Climate shift is biggest security risk: Australia (Reuters)

Status
Not open for further replies.
MontyB said:
Doesn't matter everyone that disagrees with P80 is the equivalent to Karl Marx.
In reality you are probably a center right like most of the board but if the person making the judgment is at the far right of the spectrum then you are by default leftist to them.
Click to expand...

I think thier left and our left is alittle different.

Its funny cause the Indians see me as Far Left, go figure :p

Plus P80 knows better when it comes to me. Well he should do anyway, after my history at IDF.
 
Last edited:
Kiwi said:
I think thier left and our left is alittle different.

Its funny cause the Indians see me as Far Left, go figure :p
Click to expand...

Indeed which is the point I am making, it really doesn't matter a lot as to where you see yourself as the judgment is made by each person and is determined by their alignment.

Basically if you think you live in a left wing world chances are your views are right wing and vice versa.

phoenix80 said:
It's coming... I m trying to verify your answer first!
Click to expand...

Good idea you never know when I am going manufacture a Washington Post article and then to make it seem real hack into the New England School of Medicines website and hide a bogus multiple page confirmation document on it.

I am renown for it.
 
Last edited:
major liability said:
Anything more about climate shift? Or are we talking about p80 now?
Click to expand...

Your wish is my command.

Politicians sign new climate pact


Leading international politicians have reached a new agreement on tackling climate change, at a Washington summit. Delegates agreed that developing countries would also have to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as well as rich countries.
The informal meeting also agreed that a global market should be formed to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions.
The non-binding declaration is seen as vital in influencing a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, correspondents say.
The forum's closing statement said man-made climate change was now "beyond doubt".
"Climate change is a global issue and there is an obligation on us all to take action, in line with our capabilities and historic responsibilities," said the statement from the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment (Globe).
'Tipping point'
The two-day meeting brought together legislators from countries including the Group of Eight rich nations, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa.





The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin was at the meeting and says that although the declaration carries no formal weight, it indicates a real change in mood.
The legislators agreed that developing countries had to face targets on greenhouse gas emissions, in the same way rich countries do.
They said they wanted a successor to the Kyoto Protocol - which expires in 2012 - in place by 2009.
US senator Joe Lieberman forecast that the US Congress would enact a law on cutting emissions by the end of next year, possibly this year.
And presidential candidate John McCain, who is co-sponsoring climate legislation with Mr Lieberman, was emphatic on the need for new initiatives.
"I am convinced that we have reached the tipping point and that the Congress of the United States will act, with the agreement of the administration," he told the forum.
But Dr John Holdren, the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), said President George W Bush needed to appreciate that the US economy would not suffer unnecessarily if emission were capped.
"The economic damage from not addressing climate change is much larger than the economic cost of addressing it," he said.





Meanwhile, the Canadian parliament moved to force the government to meet its Kyoto Protocol target for reducing emissions.
The ruling Conservative party argues that meeting the target, of reducing emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012, is impossible.
The parliamentary vote gives the government 60 days to formulate a plan for getting back on track.
With United Nations climate negotiations in December failing to agree a timetable for mandating new cuts in emissions when the current Kyoto targets expire in 2012, the British-led Globe set up the Washington meeting in the hope of stimulating progress in a less formal setting.
The UN's panel on climate change said earlier this month that higher global temperatures caused by man-made pollution would melt polar ice, worsen floods and droughts and cause more devastating storms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6364663.stm

It would appear that even some Republicans are leftists.
 
"The economic damage from not addressing climate change is much larger than the economic cost of addressing it,"
Click to expand...

This basically is the only statement worth anything here. Cleaning up a mess is always far more costly than not creating it in the first place. But its very much playing stating what we already know.

Developed countries do have a role to play, but basically totally unfair because third world countries contribute just as much in the damage to this world.

South Africa prime example :shock: two words "Blood Diamonds" :bang:

The damage to the enivorment to extract a shinny little stone is huge. But no thought of the damage it creates, the country couldn't give a fig.

Many poor countries rip tear and bust for a buck.
 

Sorry I jumped a step in my comment but below will explain alot better the content of my statement, all major diamond deal and exchanges go through SA hands. Including to the detection of blood diamonds. I just asummed you were aware of the Diamond industry and its code of practice.
I can't get this off bold :-x
Kimberley Process Certification Scheme
<H3 id=siteSub>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</H3>
J
The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) is a process designed to certify the origin of diamonds from sources which are free of conflict.The process was established in 2003 to prevent rebel groups and their rivals from financing their war aims from diamond sales. The certification scheme aims at preventing these "blood diamonds" from entering the mainstream rough diamond market. It was set up to try to assure consumers that by purchasing diamonds they were not financing war and human rights abuses.
The KPCS originated from a meeting of Southern African diamond producing states in Kimberley, South Africa in May 2000. In order for a country to be a participant, it must ensure
  1. that any diamond originating from the country does not finance a rebel group or other entity seeking to overthrow a UN-recognized government.
  2. that every diamond export be accompanied by a Kimberley Process certificate proving (1).
  3. that no diamond is imported from, or exported to, a non-member of the scheme.
This three-step plan is a simple description of the steps taken to ensure a "chain" of countries that deal exclusively with non-conflict diamonds. Details can be found in the official KPCS document linked in the external links section below.
The KPCS is essentially self-enforced. Supervision of the Process is done by the Chair, elected on an annual basis at a plenary meeting. A Working Group on Monitoring monitors each participant to ensure that it is implementing the scheme correctly. The Working Group reports to the Chair. Other working groups include the Technical Working Group (or Working Group of Diamond Experts) which reports on difficulties in implementation and proposed solutions, and the Statistics Working Group, which reports diamond trading data. The Participation Committee reports to the Chair on its recommendations on proposed members hoping to join the KPCS. The Selection Committee reports on its recommendations on who should be the next Vice-Chair. After a year of being Vice-Chair, the successful candidate becomes the Chair.
In 2004, Congo (Brazzaville) was removed from the scheme because it was found unable to prove the origin of its gems. For countries economically dependent on diamond exports, this can be a substantial punishment, as it disallows trade with much of the rest of the world.
Whilst the Process has been broadly welcomed by groups aiming to improve human rights in countries previously affected by conflict diamonds, such as Angola, some say it does not go far enough. For instance, Amnesty International says "[We] welcome the Kimberley Process as an important step to dealing with the problem of conflict diamonds. But until the diamond trade is subject to mandatory, impartial monitoring, there is still no effective guarantee that all conflict diamonds will be identified and removed from the market." Canadian aid group One Sky (funded in part by the Canadian government) concurs with Amnesty's view saying "If effectively implemented, the Kimberley Process will ensure that diamonds cannot be used to finance war and atrocities...However, without a system of expert, independent and periodic reviews of all countries, the overall process remains open to abuse." An example of abuse would be smuggling conflict diamonds into a certified facility or country. The German group medico international started together with other European NGOs the campaign Fatal Transactions on the financing of African conflicts through diamonds.
Another form of criticism is whether the Kimberley process is realistically enforceable. There are many factors that can jeopardize the "Officialdom of certificates and paperwork" from lack of enforcement on the ground to the secrecy in the diamond trading centers such as Antwerp.
A serious potential flaw in the scheme is that there is no mechanism by which to ensure that jewellers only sell diamonds which have been Kimberley certified. However, most major firms operating in the UK have now at least expressed support for the Kimberley process, a major exception being the celebrity jewellers, Theo Fennell, which since it specialises in jewellery featuring diamonds too small even to be graded, has given rise to speculation that Theo Fennell's sources may include significant quantities of conflict diamonds, or even consist entirely of them.
Click to expand...
 
phoenix80 said:
cuz there is no scientific proof for it!
Click to expand...


THIS ISN'T GOING TO WORK IF YOUR ONLY REPLIES ARE UNBACKED, ONE LINE ANSWERS


convince me, thats how discussions work. i'm giving you a fair go to convince me.


is there scientific (ie, not from some bush league, right wing blog), proof that your stance is the right one?

my own positon is this: i do not think that man is the sole and root cause of this warming, but that almost 200 years of industrial polutants being pumped into the sky would certianly have some effect, perhaps exaggerating a natural warming/cooling cycle. bear in mind that a natural warming/cooling cycle operates on an almost geological time scale....so when we see mass glaciar and ice shelf thawing over a 30 year time span....thats pretty significant.

do this and i'll have a fair go at prooving my reasoning once i get home from work....

also, just to remind you, YOU questioned global warming as a security risk... have a look at the effect a rising sea level will have on global coastlines...how many people live in those zones. what mojor commercial harbours/airports will now be under water...how much arable farmland submerged? then tell me that it's not worth worrying about. that sticking your fingers in your ears and crying "it's all a hoax!" is the best response.

but for now, i give the floor to you p80...convince me.
 
Last edited:
I have no intention to convince you. You're entitled to your opinion even if it is a misguided one. What in the world will change if I convince you that global warmongerism is wrong and misleading? NOTHING. So forget it!

Have fun!
 
phoenix80 said:
I have no intention to convince you. You're entitled to your opinion even if it is a misguided one. What in the world will change if I convince you that global warmongerism is wrong and misleading? NOTHING. So forget it!

Have fun!
Click to expand...


it's more that this is a discussion board and i am here to discuss topics that interest me.


is this not why you are here? or is it just to copy/paste dead end opinion blogs?
 
you spam, i ignore, or tear it apart



was just offering you the chance to have a meaningful discussion like a a rational person may enjoy.



obviously this is too much for you to handle. your loss
 
Last edited:
phoenix80 said:
No, I have given up discussing stuff with lefties. Thanx for the offer....
Click to expand...


christ your ignorant


i went against my better instincts and held out an olive branch here, just to see if we could get some dialogue going.... guess you have shown your true colours.



backed into a corner, you just throw your toys out of the crib and start the name calling.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top