Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:29 am    Post subject: a letter to Ki-Ban Moon Reply with quote

Funny how Ki-Ban Moon didn't read this out from the podium at Bali. The fabled consensus looks a bit shaky when there's notes like this floating around, signed by 100 scientists, including folks like A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy...

-Mac

The following letter was sent to Ban Ki-moon,
Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Dec. 13, 2007

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government ­representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

* Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
* The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
* Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see IPCC Working Group Schedule) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

(100 scientists signed the letter... If you wanna read their names & positions, follow the link in the title... -Mac)
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.


This is really the biggest problem, IMO. If, as some evidence is showing, we really are cooling and headed for a mini-ice age, we're going to need all the development we can get. Most of the west will probably be okay, but the negative impact of AGW activists on development in the thrid world could cost many, many lives.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
This is really the biggest problem, IMO. If, as some evidence is showing, we really are cooling and headed for a mini-ice age, we're going to need all the development we can get. Most of the west will probably be okay, but the negative impact of AGW activists on development in the thrid world could cost many, many lives.

It is noteworthy that they're highlighting the problem as being the disconnect between the actual science (which is ongoing) and the pseudoscience (the "science" that's in) and they're raising alarm flags because the political body and eco-activistsl are following the latter, not the former.

-Mac
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Quote:
In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.


This is really the biggest problem, IMO. If, as some evidence is showing, we really are cooling and headed for a mini-ice age, we're going to need all the development we can get. Most of the west will probably be okay, but the negative impact of AGW activists on development in the thrid world could cost many, many lives.


This is certainly a concern, it's the emphasis on bio-fuels that is my big worry. More and more land is being tilled to fuel our cars and not the people. Oxfam and other charities like the Red Cross are finding that staples like Rice, Wheat and corn, are rising and their dollars are not going as far, not feeding the numbers it used to, they are also not seeing an increase in donations to help compensate.

The poor nations are further harnessing an anvil around the necks of their peoples as more and more of these limited funds are being used to feed families then ever before.

Malnutrition in groups of people that used to be able to survive will soon be the norm I fear.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
This is certainly a concern, it's the emphasis on bio-fuels that is my big worry. More and more land is being tilled to fuel our cars and not the people. Oxfam and other charities like the Red Cross are finding that staples like Rice, Wheat and corn, are rising and their dollars are not going as far, not feeding the numbers it used to, they are also not seeing an increase in donations to help compensate.

The poor nations are further harnessing an anvil around the necks of their peoples as more and more of these limited funds are being used to feed families then ever before.

Malnutrition in groups of people that used to be able to survive will soon be the norm I fear.

Biofuels aren't causing the rise in prices, crazymamma. It's a combination of the hike in the price of oil, taxation and a couple of bad growing seasons for a number of major grain producing countries.

-Mac
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, it is biofuels. There have always been droughts and crop failures, yet the price of corn or wheat has never before risen to their current levels. Biofuels are the only new variable.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
crazymamma wrote:
This is certainly a concern, it's the emphasis on bio-fuels that is my big worry. More and more land is being tilled to fuel our cars and not the people. Oxfam and other charities like the Red Cross are finding that staples like Rice, Wheat and corn, are rising and their dollars are not going as far, not feeding the numbers it used to, they are also not seeing an increase in donations to help compensate.

The poor nations are further harnessing an anvil around the necks of their peoples as more and more of these limited funds are being used to feed families then ever before.

Malnutrition in groups of people that used to be able to survive will soon be the norm I fear.

Biofuels aren't causing the rise in prices, crazymamma. It's a combination of the hike in the price of oil, taxation and a couple of bad growing seasons for a number of major grain producing countries.

-Mac


I agree that the price of oil is a factor, but I see some folks agree with me that Bio-fuels are becoming an issue.

http://www.roanoke.com/editori...../wb/155706

The World Food Program's costs are rising by millions of dollars per week and the donations aren't, warns WFP executive director Josette Sheeran. The WFP is trying to feed more than 70 million people in 78 countries with voluntary contributions -- but now can't afford to keep its agreed-upon commitments.

World corn prices are above $5 a bushel, up from $1.86 three years ago. Prices for wheat, soybeans, rice and even cotton are rising as they're crowded out of field space by biofuel crops. Pakistan says it will reimpose food rationing for the first time since the 1980s. China's food inflation rate is 18.2 percent, and the Chinese have blocked further expansion of their fledgling biofuel program.

Oxfam points out that the poor in the Third World must often spend 60 to 80 percent of their incomes for food, so the price increases are a drastic threat to their well-being.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296728,00.html


The increase in pasta prices is being driven by rising wheat prices worldwide, economists and producers say. The demand for wheat is the result of several trends, chiefly an increasing demand for biofuels, which can be made from wheat, and improved diets in emerging countries where putting more meat on the table is raising the demand for feed for livestock, said Francesco Bertolini, an economist at Milan's Bocconi University.

http://www.technologyreview.co.....173&a=

The recent rise in corn prices--almost 70 percent in the past six months--caused by the increased demand for ethanol biofuel has come much sooner than many agriculture economists had expected.


According to the United States Department of Agriculture, this year the country is going to use 18 to 20 percent of its total corn crop for the production of ethanol, and by next year that will jump to 25 percent. And that increase, says Marshall Martin, an agriculture economist at Purdue University, "is the main driver behind the price increase for corn."

Just a few examples for your perusal. :wink:
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crazy Momma
Quote:
The poor nations are further harnessing an anvil around the necks of their peoples as more and more of these limited funds are being used to feed families then ever before.

Malnutrition in groups of people that used to be able to survive will soon be the norm I fear.


Crop prices did not rise for decades. Now farmers catch a break and everyone is worried.

75% of people in Africa are farmers. Higher prices for their crops will not hurt them, as long as their corrupt governments allow them to receive the benefit of these higher prices. Higher grain prices and the end to subsidies in developed nations was one of Bono's big demands when he and Geldalf where trying to get aid for Africa.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
Just a few examples for your perusal. :wink:

Thank you both for being gentle with me. I didn't realize biofuel has made such an impact. The last time I looked hard at biofuels, there wasn't sufficient infrastructure to make any form commercially viable, let alone available, despite government efforts to bring about mass production... but that was a while ago.

I know this might sound terrible, crazymamma, but farmers are more important than starving people. If people are unable to feed themselves, they have a problem which can be solved by laying down their weapons and taking up their ploughshares.

-Mac
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mamma gives some compelling evidence that higher food prices are bad at least in the short run. In the long run(at least in African countries not ravaged by war) I think it will be good of poorer nations. They may become exporters of grains as demand increases. A good farming base is essential for a country to develop.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Mamma gives some compelling evidence that higher food prices are bad at least in the short run. In the long run(at least in African countries not ravaged by war) I think it will be good of poorer nations. They may become exporters of grains as demand increases. A good farming base is essential for a country to develop.

Unfortunately, long term thinking isn't one of the UN's skills. Strangely enough, a few of the African nations are starting to figure out that free food does more harm than good in the long run.

-Mac
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm a country girl, Canadian farmers are very hard working people and they do not get rich.

To see the land finally give these families more profit? I'm all for it.

My concern is for those nations that have governments that do not take care of it's most vulnerable, even places like India where you die where you were born. Where opportunity to cash in just isn't in the equation for the average person.

All things take a while to shake out, some things are detrimental and some excitingly for the good of the people. The industrial revolution had it's casualties too.

I would just like to get the message out there that there is a serious consequence to the hungry because our obsession to "greening" our cars. Feeding a car over a person is bizarre to me.

The job of charitable organizations just got that much harder, that much more expensive, to do the same as before. Now they need to get the word out and do the job with less or start letting people know why legitimately they need more.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, you have to qualify that. In Western Canada, it will be the CWB and not the farmers who get rich with current grain prices. Nobody really knows what the CWB does with all their money, except that farmers get only a small fraction.
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Well, you have to qualify that. In Western Canada, it will be the CWB and not the farmers who get rich with current grain prices. Nobody really knows what the CWB does with all their money, except that farmers get only a small fraction.


So true. One of my customers told me that out of a $4,000 wheat cheque, the CWB took $1,500. The CWB wants perfect wheat. A farmer told me last year he spent over $10,000 to fertilize and spray chemicals and pesticides on his wheat crop. Then it cost $200 to truck it to the grain elevator and it was full of bugs. It cost another $200 to truck it home and another $200 to fumigate it, and another $200 to truck it back to the elevator. The CWB charges the farmer to clean the chaff off of it and turns around and sells the chaff as chicken feed, with no profit going to the farmer. The CWB really needs to go. Why is it only Western farmers who are unable to sell their wheat to whoever they want? And if they do, face jail sentences.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Harper is trying to fix it. I hope this is one of the things that gets done before the next election is called.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


a letter to Ki-Ban Moon

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB