News24

How high must the water rise?

2011-11-29 07:14

Durban - Almost 200 nations began global climate talks on Monday with time running out to save the Kyoto Protocol aimed at cutting the greenhouse gas emissions scientists blame for rising sea levels, intense storms, drought and crop failures.

Poor nations say wealthy countries became rich using coal, oil and gas and that they must be allowed to burn fossil fuels to escape poverty. Rich nations say major developing economies, such as China, India and Brazil, must submit to emissions cuts if the world has any chance of halting dangerous climate change.

The stakes are high. Two UN reports this month said greenhouse gases had reached record levels in the atmosphere and a warming world would likely bring more floods, stronger cyclones and more intense droughts.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said global average temperatures could rise by 3-6°C by the end of the century if governments failed to contain emissions, bringing unprecedented destruction as glaciers melt and sea levels rise.

It said an 80% rise in global energy demand was set to raise carbon dioxide (Co2) emissions by 70% by 2050 and transport emissions were expected to double, due in part to a surge in demand for cars in developing nations.

EU climate negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger told a news conference unless progress was made: "[People] will just lose confidence in this travelling circus. How high must the water get in these conference places before the negotiators start deciding?"

Flash flooding from heavy rain killed at least six people in Durban the night before the talks opened.

The Kyoto Protocol commits most developed nations to legally binding targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The talks in Durban are the last chance to set another round of targets before the first stage of the protocol ends in 2012.

"It may seem impossible, but you can get it done," Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, told delegates.

Islands doomed

Diplomats hope there will be some progress on funding to help developing countries most at risk from the effects of global warming, particularly in Africa and small island states.

Rich nations have committed to a goal of providing $100bn a year in climate cash by 2020. But the United States and Saudi Arabia have objected to some aspects of the Green Climate Fund that will help manage it.

There is also a chance that some nations will pledge deeper emissions cuts.

But the debt crisis hitting the euro zone and the United States makes it unlikely those countries will provide more aid or impose new measures that could hurt their growth prospects.

EU envoys said they want a new deal for emissions cuts reached by 2015 and in place by 2020, and it will only be effective if major polluters sign on.

Any accord depends on China and the United States, the world's top emitters, agreeing to binding action under a wider deal by 2015, something both have resisted for years.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said: "If Durban puts off a legally binding agreement and closes the door on raising mitigation ambition before 2020 many of our small island states will be literally and figuratively doomed."


Comments
  • Marius Koen - 2011-11-29 07:34

    Dont trust the Chinese. Or Americans.

      vaaldonkie - 2011-11-29 11:02

      Don't trust anyone who flies around in a jet, bemoaning the fact that we travel in jets.

      Amanda - 2011-11-29 11:33

      Ja ou swaar. This global warming fraud is just so frustrating. All media outlets bow down to the UN and their phony science as if it's dinkum. The planet hasn't warmed since 1998. Flash flooding has been happening for millions of years. Volcano's and hurricanes happen, whether you like it or not. How about the deniers also fly in and have their own conference on what a BS story this is. I bet they won't get any funding like the believers do!

  • Jerhone - 2011-11-29 07:38

    there's a red indian saying that until the last tree is cut down, the last river is poisoned,causing the last fish to die, then ONLY then will man realise he can't eat money

      Cameronl - 2011-11-29 08:36

      a very powerful saying, I honestly hope we as humankind wake up before its too late

  • ARC22 - 2011-11-29 07:41

    Here we go again! The sea will rise, temperatures COULD increase 3-6 degrees (Stated in article). Next week, there will be a counter-claim that this information isn't correct. IF the sea levels are predicted to rise, why is coastal development still being approved? Climate change, Rising Sea levels, etc etc etc is all Heresay nothing more. There is no hard proof that this is actually happening!

      Breinlekkasie - 2011-11-29 08:11

      This information is most definitely correct especially if the weather patterns and carbon-dioxide levels of the last 400 000 years are cross referenced with geological records. Lets do nothing and see what happens. If nothing happens you are right, the research are a hoax. If something happens it will be to late to have these conversations, right?

      Johan - 2011-11-29 08:35

      @Breinlekkasie - Carbon is a result of warming, not a cause. Fact AND proven. "Man made" climate change however is just a theory with NO proof. Warmer oceans release CO2, colder oceans absorps CO2. Hmmm.... the politicians (IPCC, Al Gore, etc etc) don't tell you that do they? Of course not, because money can only flow where a "crisis" is created. Have fun believing in the bent science.

      DavidCoetzee - 2011-11-29 08:51

      I agree Totally ARC22, this whole climate change thing is a crock of &^%$ When las thave you heard anything about the ozone layer? It was proved that the enlarging of the hole was actually a natural phenomena and that it sharnk again, in cycles. Go do some research on the whole climate change thing, the scientists are firmly divided. Seems like climate change is a natural earthly cycle. Nothing we can do is going to change it. Its all one big money making scheme again. Remember the margerine butter debate? That was all to increase sales.

      hadedah - 2011-11-29 08:57

      It is very strange, we live in sedgefield on the island the mouth of the river feeding the lagoon used to be opened by bull dozer 9 months ago. it was forcible opened and the riveer feeding swaartvlei etc was able to go into the sea. It has not been opened by man since as the sea now keeps it open ands is flowing high into the upper reaches of the lagoon at high tide and remains open at low tide. if we have severe rain in the mountains and this meets the incomming tide we have a major problem. the island will be flooded and the main road to george and Knysna will be closed as the depth of water at the bridge will be in access of four feet as it was some time ago. Global warming is very definately here. many of the low lying coastal roads will be permanetly closed to traffic in the foreseable future.Then what?:?

      Cobus - 2011-11-29 08:59

      ARC22, some insurance companies are actually looking at possible effects of rising sea levels on coastal properties

      Deon - 2011-11-29 09:00

      We will hardly notice an increase of 3 to 6% in temperaturte in 90 years = less than 1% every 10 years

      rory.short1 - 2011-11-29 09:27

      Are you blind I wonder? Weather patterns right here are definitely changing, August winds now seem to happen more into Oct/Nov for example. Climate change is not like activating a light switch it is a gradual process the recognition of which requires sustained awareness over time.

      JohnnyBGood - 2011-11-29 09:36

      @ARC22, you ask why is coastal developments still being approved. One word: MONEY... It is sad, but true.

      Johan - 2011-11-29 10:29

      @rory.short1 - I for one do not dispute that climate change is real. Climate is changing, but it has been changing since the dawn of time. Why blame man? Co2 an effect of warming, not a cause! Sea levels have been lower, and they have been higher, than now. And yes, polar bears can swim very well and have survived an ice free arctic before.

      Henry - 2011-11-29 10:33

      Global warming is a money making scheme. The warmest year was 1996. Note they do not call it global warming it is now climate change. The reason is you because you do not notice that it is getting warmer. They must rather stop poluting the oceans which change co2 to o2. What about the other planets also getting warmer? Or are they??

      cliff.slabbert - 2011-11-29 10:48

      This is just a huge lobby run by politicians and some interested big businesses !

      Colin - 2011-11-29 11:07

      "climate change" is a billion dollar industry especially with carbon tax. Politicians and scientists love telling the world what they are doing about it. What the real problem is though is that it is shifting the focus from much more immediate problems like toxic waste and poisons being dumped in the ocean and industrial waste killing our rivers. Cleaning up our waste would cost a lot of money instead of enriching corrupt politicians so its just not a priority.

      Ernst - 2011-11-29 11:37

      Yeah, deny science. While youre at it, throw your PC away as well.

      Ernst - 2011-11-29 11:47

      @Henry: "Global warming is a money making scheme. The warmest year was 1996. Note they do not call it global warming it is now climate change. The reason is you because you do not notice that it is getting warmer. They must rather stop poluting the oceans which change co2 to o2. What about the other planets also getting warmer? Or are they??" You are talking absolute bull. For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. I always laugh at people that say AGW is a money making scheme. Who will be the real losers when Global Warming is tackled? Who?.....Wait...Wait for it.....The FOSSIL FEUL industry. That's right. And how big is this industry? Well it's a trillion dollar industry. Now the green industry, on the other hand, is a "few billion dollar industry" which is small fry in comparison. So Climate Change denialists cant win the scientific arguments so they have to make up conspiracies along the way. Pathetic. 1)http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm 2)http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm 3)http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm 4)http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm 5)http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm 6)http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

      Colin - 2011-11-29 11:59

      ernst http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Warmest-decade-since-1850-20111129 so 2010 is not the warmest on record and it used to be much warmer in fact New York Times the Worst: Longtime readers of the Times could easily recall the paper claiming “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” along with its strong support of current global warming predictions. Older readers might well recall two other claims of a climate shift back to the 1800s – one an ice age and the other warming again. The Times has warned of four separate climate changes since 1895

      Ernst - 2011-11-29 12:21

      @Colin: The scientific instruments have become much more sophisticated over time and science is continually improving. Evidence of man-made global warming has become stronger as science has advanced. In the 1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.

      Ernst - 2011-11-29 12:24

      @Colin: In contrast to the past, there are now a number of scientific bodies (not the only ones but just a rudimentary list)that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Protection Agency NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics National Center for Atmospheric Research American Meteorological Society The Royal Society of the UK Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society American Association for the Advancement of Science

  • peter.j.solomon - 2011-11-29 07:43

    Do yourself a favour, fill a bottle with water and freeze it.. What happens? The bottle expands... Then melt it back into water form and it shrinks in size. So if the ice is really melting, then surely the water levels are going to go down and not up and there will be more space for the water to use...

      DuToitCoetzee - 2011-11-29 08:16

      1)World is not a bottle.(Sealed/closed environment.) 2)If on land, ice fill space in the atmosphere. If in water 1/5 is on top of water. 3)When iced, temperatures kept size stabilized, but when in liquid form more heat can expand water and are controlled by more effects and elements. 4)Put ice block on ground and measure the wet spot. Put in sun and measure the wet spot after an hour. The effect is greater and you can swept the water to a bigger area. 5) Ice block can stay freshwater, but when exposed, in liquid form, it partly looses it due to elements and minerals. I am not saying you are wrong and I also had this belief that you have, but these days these points let me wonder if I am not wrong. Just a thought.

      zane.erasmus - 2011-11-29 08:19

      The Earth is not a bottle

      Cameronl - 2011-11-29 08:39

      hahaha what a chop. please tell me ur not that dumn to have come with that all on your own? as the others said, "The earth IS NOT a bottle!"

  • Breinlekkasie - 2011-11-29 08:04

    How high must the water rise? Until my property is on the beach front!

      vaaldonkie - 2011-11-29 11:03

      Amen.

      Colin - 2011-11-29 11:08

      pretoria by die see

  • Jan - 2011-11-29 08:04

    I am not aware of any scientific evidence that the "water" has actually risen since the "blame it on human acivity" climate change theory/religion has become popular (except perhaps for a mm or so - very difficult to measure confidently). Of course we know that historically climate and water levels have always changed. In fact, there is no such thing as a constant climate - even long before humans inhabited earth. Warmer periods has always been associated with prosperity and the development of civilisations. This time around, however, the polititians seem to be impatient and cannot wait for slow economic expansion. Much better to tax straight away. Since water vapour is a much better greenhouse gas that carbon dioxide, I suggest we look at this - much more of it around and much bigger potential tax revenue.

  • Greg - 2011-11-29 09:43

    When will we realise that the power to change the suicidal direction of our global economy and its effects on our environment & climate is firmly in our hands now, today. We cannot blame the past generations of the industrial revolution, they are dead and buried and we are left with the mess! We can not pass the buck onto a future generation as the scale of damage will be irreversible! This is a moment in time that humanity has to act from the grass roots and not depend on the so-called 'world leaders', the scientific and academic communities, whose motives, values, principles and moral standing would be highly questionable considering that no decisive action has been taken but rather a mediocre, soppy and whinning attempt to justify inaction!!! How will our grand children and great grand children judge our spineless approach to global climate disaster? I say a global revolution is needed where we think outside of the box. We already have the technology to build engines that do not use fossil fuels, but the oil companies and governments will literally annihalate anyone who makes such technology commercially availble. Let this be the start of the revolution of which future generations will be proud of us!

  • ludlowdj - 2011-11-29 09:53

    This is all misinformation and a cover up by the world scientific body. We have seen an almost 400% increase in natural disasters in the last year alone, how can making plans for 10 years time help or even be relevant when if the current trend maintains the same level of advancement we would have had in the region of a 4000% increase in natural disaster, something the human species would not survive anyway. This is nothing but an answer to uncomfortable questions which has no basis in reality and is based wholly on the lie that climate change is a man made phenomenon. which it isn't and never has been.

  • Eric - 2011-11-29 10:13

    From Internationales Asienforum. Vol. 38 (2007) No. 3-4 : Nils-Axel Mörner, Sea Level Changes and Tsunamis, Environmental Stress and Migration Overseas. The Case of the Maldives and Sri Lanka, pp. 353–374 "The predominant view of a rapid rise in sea level seems no longer tenable, and no signs of any ongoing sea level rise were found in the Maldives. Therefore, our new observational data seem to give the all-clear as regards extensive flooding of low-lying coastal areas and islands in the near future."

  • rory.short1 - 2011-11-29 10:50

    Life is an inter-connected system so the Western nations debt crises are impeding taking the necessary climate actions. The debt crisis is man made in the sense that it is a natural consequence of the marriage between human nature and the money system that we have created. The only purpose of money is to serve as a record of the value of the real goods and/or services involved in a mutual exchange between two parties. So money is just a record of value and as a record it can be and is recorded in many different ways, as we know, from digitally to notes and coins. Our problem is that in our collective thinking we have objectified money seeing and treating it like some real good when it emphatically is not. Seeing money as a real good has opened the way for our collective acceptance of money being created out of thin air, at a national level euphemistically called quantative easing [QE] by the Us Federal Reserve. This is nothing but apparently getting something for nothing. This unconsciously panders to unreformed human nature in the desire to get things for nothing. In real terms QE is nothing but legalised counterfeiting, i.e. money being created completely apart from any exchange of real goods and/or services. The immediate consequence of counterfeiting is that the real value of money already in existence is eroded, we know it as inflation.

  • rory.short1 - 2011-11-29 10:52

    Contnd/ Inflation is the increase in the monetary price of real goods and/or services, their real value is unchanged, it is just the monetary value which increases. If you think about this situation, of the real value of money being constantly eroded, you will realise from your own experience that it, not unsurprisingly, produces increased levels of instability, anxiety and uncertainty and at a societal level it produces a massive burden of debt. This is the debt that Western nations are grappling with. Humankind has to return to money only being created at the point of exchange of real goods and/or services if, and only if, the recipient of the real goods and or/services has insufficient money to complete the exchange and provided that the recipient does not exceed a socially agreed limit on the amount of new money that can be issued to them. The new money is really an acknowledgement by the recipient that they need to supply into the community real goods and/or services to the value of the new money.

  • vaaldonkie - 2011-11-29 11:07

    Let's see: ->the 1980's gave us the acid rain scare. Governments used this as an excuse to tax more and curb our freedoms. ->the 1990's gave us the hole in the ozone layer. Governments used this as an excuse to tax more and curb our freedoms. As a bonus we also had Y2K. ->the noughties gave us the great Islamic Terrorist scare. Governments used this as an excuse to tax more and curb our freedoms. ->this decade gave us Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change. Governments used this as an excuse to tax more and curb our freedoms. Anyone see a pattern? Whether these things are really as dangerous as claimed, it seems to be a handy excuse to turn us into perpetual serfs.

      Ernst - 2011-11-29 11:35

      "the 1990's gave us the hole in the ozone layer. Governments used this as an excuse to tax more and curb our freedoms." Oh please. The hole in the ozone layer was a very REAL threat and satelite photo's actually showed this hole. When governments came toghether, they hammered out the Montreal protocol and so CFC's were fazed out. The same thing applies to AGW. So what's your point?

      Colin - 2011-11-29 12:07

      New York Times the Worst: Longtime readers of the Times could easily recall the paper claiming “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” along with its strong support of current global warming predictions. Older readers might well recall two other claims of a climate shift back to the 1800s – one an ice age and the other warming again. The Times has warned of four separate climate changes since 1895 And each time it is held as fact and each time they mock the skeptics only to crawl silently back into their holes when history proves them wrong.

      Ernst - 2011-11-29 12:20

      @Colin: The scientific instruments have become much more sophisticated over time and science is continually improving. Evidence of man-made global warming has become stronger as science has advanced. In the 1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.

      Colin - 2011-11-29 12:24

      http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146138 Even scientists can't agree and the global warming cabal has been caught lying more than once. However you must agree that there are a lot more important and pressing but less profitable environmental matters that we can actually solve now. At the rate we are killing the planet the temperature in 100 years won't matter.

      Ernst - 2011-11-29 12:45

      @Colin: Where have scientists not agreed on the issue and where have they lied?If you dont believe in Global Warming then so be it, but dont justify your delusions posting denialist crap. Please see: 1)http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm 2)http://www.skepticalscience.com/fake-scandal-Climategate.html

      vaaldonkie - 2011-11-29 12:51

      Do we have actual evidence of the hole in the ozone layer, or were there just lots of people assuring us that it is, in fact, so?

      Colin - 2011-11-29 13:09

      Ever heard of climategate? Guess not anyway http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm a peer reviewed study about the issues by scientists who don't believe the carbon/global warming theory. So proof that scientists lied and that not all of them agree. Hopefully the important issues will be solved by the time your kind wakes up. And for the rest who isn't blinded by fanaticism my point is that while I do not support or deny the global warming theory it is wrong to spend billions on something that we can't even agree on while much more serious damage is being done to the environment. For example coral reefs, which act as the oceans nurseries, being killed by pollution.

      Ernst - 2011-11-29 13:26

      "Do we have actual evidence of the hole in the ozone layer, or were there just lots of people assuring us that it is, in fact, so?" People like you should not take any benefit from science. You choose to beleive science when it suits you. Below is a link to a scientist that did research on ozone depletion in the 90's. You will also find some of her Peer-reviewed published papers on the issue. http://archive.sciencewatch.com/sept-oct2002/sw_sept-oct2002_page3.htm @ Colin: Ag shame. Another idiot that believes in fake scandals. http://www.skepticalscience.com/fake-scandal-Climategate.html

      Colin - 2011-11-29 13:38

      haha ernst. Once you are mature enough to carry an argument instead of resorting to name calling we can have this discussion again, maybe by then you will have learned to investigate both sides of a story instead of swallowing everything they feed you.

      Ernst - 2011-11-29 13:43

      @Colin: Sorry Colin, I should not have called you that. I apologise. However, your assertion that I swallow everything that is thrown my way is rubbish. I am very well educated (I hold a PHD) and I know alot about the scientific process.

      Colin - 2011-11-29 13:53

      ok then go read my what I'm saying, we are spending billions on climate change and people are making billions from climate change. While the effects will get progressively worse according to their theories we are not talking about the earth ending tomorrow or at all if you look at the dissenting views. However the damage we are doing in other ways are a lot worse and will leave permanent effects, for example chernobyl and now fukushima and I can name you a million others but since it will cost a lot of money to fix those issues are ignored in favour of the global warming debate. If you look at the people supporting the global warming initiative they are in many cases the worst offenders with other pollution.

      Ernst - 2011-11-29 14:18

      Yes Colin youre right. The worst offenders are sometimes the very people that are pushing AGW. But there is substantial evidence pointing to man and this evidence is not getting weaker, it's getting stronger. We must do something. We have to use energy more sustainably. What I try and do is to find the best source of information. Sources of information funded by the oil industry are generally bad. I believe that the peer-review scientific process is the most robust process and people can trust it. It has been responsible for all scientific progress. You see, science corrects itself. It is impossible for scientists to publish research, using scientifically flawed methods, in prestigious (peer-reviewed) journals. If mistakes do get through, then other scientists will pounce on the mistake as it virtually guarantees them of a publication. So, in a way, the whole scientific process is "self correcting". If a researcher is found guilty of dishonesty then his/her career will be over. A scientists reputation is at stake and there is nothing more important to a researcher than that. Also, people in the scientific fraternity are not there for the money as there is no money. You can ask any academic what his/her salary is. So look at research done and look at the prestige of the journal, and that gives one a good idea of what actually goes on.

      vaaldonkie - 2011-11-29 15:07

      There is NO evidence that climate change (IF it existed) is man-made. Both times the evidence was asked for under the American Freedom Of Information act, the "scientists" couldn't offer it up, but did an impressive song and dance trying to cover their backsides.

      Ernst - 2011-11-29 16:32

      @Vaaldonkie: There is ample evidence that human activity is to blame. Please provide me with citations to back up your claims. To make up some conspiracy, just because you cannot win the scientific argument is just really pathetic. 98% of climate scientists, actively publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals, agree that human activity is to blame. See below: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

      Ernst - 2011-11-29 16:36

      Oh yeah vaaldonkie I forgot to include a rudimentary list of prestigious scientific organizations that, based on peer-reviewed research, endorse Anthropogenic Climate Change: Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": American Association for the Advancement of Science American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society Australian Coral Reef Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO British Antarctic Survey Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Environmental Protection Agency European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society Federation of American Scientists Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Center for Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Royal Meteorological Society Royal Society of the UK

  • Just_my_opinion - 2011-11-29 11:16

    If the CO2 levels trebled it would be at 0.1% as it's currently only 0.03% just a tiny bit more than nothing! You cannot tell me that the CO2 is what's causing the climate change. Granted the global temperatures are rising and climate is changing, but due to CO2? I don't think so!

      vaaldonkie - 2011-11-29 12:52

      What I'd like to know is if CO2 level increase, why wouldn't plants grow quicker/bigger?

  • gary.jurgens - 2011-11-29 13:20

    Dont trust ANC and the beging boll more grave

  • Niki - 2011-11-29 15:10

    Why are cars getting bigger and bigger - and specifically those of people who don't have big families, and often have a second car? Am I the only person in the world who seems to suspect that burning extra fuel while hauling around that extra tonnage could harm the environment?

      vaaldonkie - 2011-11-29 16:17

      LOL wut! You are not even wrong.

  • Kerry - 2011-11-30 07:51

    CLIMATE CHANGE read: MONEY MAKING FRAUD / SCAM This is only a cyclical weather pattern that has been happening for millions of years. All you loony liberal progressives are con and scare artists. Take money out of the equation and the whole thing will fall to pieces like Al Gore's carbon trading company. He and his ilk were the only one's to make a HUGE HUGE PROFIT out of that fraud. WAKE-UP PEOPLE!!!!!!

      Ernst - 2011-11-30 10:52

      "This is only a cyclical weather pattern that has been happening for millions of years. All you loony liberal progressives are con and scare artists." The climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm "CLIMATE CHANGE read: MONEY MAKING FRAUD / SCAM " You forgot to mention that the fossil fuel industry (oil, coal, gas etc.) rakes in trillions of dollars each year by keeping you and me addicted to oil. This industry, heavily subsidized by world goverments, stand to loose substantial cash if action is taken. The green industry, on the other hand, is small fry in comparison.

  • pswart40 - 2011-11-30 10:46

    Weet julle wat beteken 1'C al klaar. Op 3'C is dit amper irreversable... Op 6'C is ons klein kinders in groot moeilikheid... Die ys smelt net meer en meer... Durban, kaapstad, nederland plekke naby aan die see is onder water...

  • pages:
  • 1