Australia faces worse storms - experts

2011-02-04 22:25

Sydney - Australia will face storms of increasing intensity as a result of climate change, a respected think-tank says as the nation reels from the devastation wrought by Cyclone Yasi.

The cyclone, a maximum-category five storm reportedly large enough to cover most of the United States and with winds stronger than Hurricane Katrina, hit Queensland on Thursday, packing winds of up to 290km/h.

Researchers at the prestigious Climate Institute said that warmer temperatures were expected to produce more intense torrential downpours like Yasi, particularly in the country's tropical north.

The Climate Institute said: "For Queensland, this is likely to spell storms and floods of increasing ferocity over a greater part of the state.

"Sadly, Australia must prepare for more of these types of catastrophic events and even greater extremes as climate change drives more frequent and more intense wild weather," said John Connor, the institute's head.

The biggest storm to hit Australia in a century wrought huge damage to small coastal communities, cutting some of them off completely. But while two men were reported missing, there were no confirmed deaths caused directly by Yasi.

Queensland is still recovering from a record deluge and floods that destroyed tens of thousands of homes and killed more than 30 people last month.

The Climate Institute is calling for urgent measures to arrest global warming as north Queensland recovers from the twin disasters.

  • Gemini101 - 2011-02-04 23:17

    LOL Theres a good reason why they used to send all the criminals there in the first place. - 2011-02-05 00:29

      What is 'LOL' about the suffering of human beings.....?!? I simply CANNOT believe that people get such a kick out of this sort of thing but then again this is SA......

      Wayne - 2011-02-05 02:50

      And what reason would that be?

  • bjanks - 2011-02-05 00:52

    I would rather face these storms then face the storms that is South African Corruption, Crime and General decay. You have more of a chance to survive!!!!!

      snackpaz - 2011-02-05 07:51

      ag jirre. listen to this guy

  • Wayne - 2011-02-05 03:08

    It is ironic that Australia and particularly Queensland, is the biggest exporter of coking coal in the world. We also export a lot of other minerals and energy to the rest of the world to feed the insatiable beast of consumerism. As we are finding out; economic growth is not the most important thing in the universe but a means to "mass suicide".

      jouplesier - 2011-02-05 03:46

      wayne after reading both your comments, i believe you should delete your news24 account and rather spend this time you use to comment nonsense on reading up on history..... if "economic growth is suicide" then how did the USA become the strongest country in the world??? look at China as well, they have and have always had a huge population but its only recently that they became a world power...why? -ECONOMIC GROWTH!! the list goes on, but i doubt some insight will appeal to you and your moronic views

      Alfred - 2011-02-05 09:25

      @jouplesier You're a low I.Q redneck idiot unable to grasp the big picture. You should delete your News24 account because it would increase the average I.Q. of news24 commentators.

  • Neso - 2011-02-05 06:47

    What a load of bollocks! There is nothing new about changing climates - climates have been changing ever since the beginning of time. Every century will have it's worst storm, flood, fire, earthquake, volcanic eruption, natural disaster of some sort (and note they are called natural disasters!). The convenient 'hanger' of climate change or global warming (sic!) is already overburdened. Climates change - live with it.

      Alfred - 2011-02-05 09:48

      Another low I.Q moron who thinks he knows more about meteorology than tens of thousands of meteorologists with PhD's not to mention all the prestigious scientific institutes in the world like the American Academy of Science. Talk about delusions of grandeur. Considering the fact that you represent the average human, mankind is truly fucked.

  • morneb - 2011-02-05 08:36

    @jouplesier. I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Wayne is alluding to the fact that mass increase in industrialism has considerable impact on the environment, which can and will lead to the loss of many lives. You are obviously living in your own little bubble, believing the world only extends as far as your back door and your back pocket. This narrow-mindedness reflects naivety, arrogance and culpable stupidity. When weighing economy vs. environment in the balance the western consumerist views (which all other dispensations are increasingly trying to emulate) will almost always hold sway. The power of money supersedes logic and good sense; in other words the right decisions economically is most often not the right decision environmentally. "Jou plesier" is becoming "Jou grootste fout" is becoming "Jou tragedie".

  • Bianca - 2011-02-05 09:49

    When it was Haiti everyone claimed that it was God's Punishment and now that it is Australia a different view is being harboured, I believe it is just nature but this morning as I was thinking this rude comparison came into my mind.

      Vuzi - 2011-02-05 10:01

      Haiti's earthquake killed 250 000, Aus' floods maybe 60. Clearly God hates blacks.

  • Neso - 2011-02-05 09:51

    @Alfred - I guess you failed science!

      nixcroft - 2011-02-05 10:20

      no one denies climate change. but there is a substantial amount of evidence pointing to the fact human intervention is causing it to accelerate. I personally do believe that mankind is influencing nature in a negative way. We always have thus far when looking at the bigger picture. God/Nature/Time whatever you want to call it took carbon out of the atmosphere over millions and millions of years and put it underground so that the prevailing life forms on this planet can survive on OXYGEN. That billions upon billions of tons of carbon was safely put away as coal, oil and natural gas amongst other things. So what does man do in all its infinite wisdom ? Mine it, pump it and extract it and then : BURN it. putting all the carbon back in the air. Goes against what nature has been doing for a pretty long time. Wether this is the sole cause of climate change is highly debatable i agree with you. Does it help ? Surely not. Maybe the dinosaurs were all cold blooded, with all that carbon in the air and not underground like it was 200 odd years ago earth was likely much warmer...who knows ? My point is one way or the other the facts (not the reasons for them) point that we are headed into some serious bad weather. We haven't been around and smart enough for long enough to assume to know what climate change really is. Science has only really been around for 200 odd years...

  • Wayne - 2011-02-05 15:54

    In regard to my earlier comment on economic growth and mass suicide I was indirectly quoting the UN secretary general,Ban Ki-moon, he said "The world’s current economic model is an environmental “global suicide pact” that will result in disaster if it isn’t reformed...". I wouldn't call him a moron. And to jouplesier, "...strongest country in the world" and " power" doesn't equal GOOD to me, people or sovereignty (and the environment) have to be dominated for those terms to be relevant.

  • Gary - 2011-02-05 22:27

    Neso has done his homework. The mainstream media's Global Warming one-sided story doesn't portray the facts even remotely correctly. Do some homework away from the lies of the mainstream media, and many more highly qualified meteorologists will tell you a different story- or don’t believe them and do some of your own homework- there is so much data available to expose the Global Warming lies (hell, now that many folk are waking up to the fact that globally it’s actually been getting colder the last 3 years, they are starting to call it “Global Climate Instability”. The media has given such a biased story, that it amounts to nothing short of lies. It's not about Global Warming but global governance. Sorry, Alfred, but I think you're the one who's a low-IQ moron. Have a look at the REAL facts stop believing any cr*p you're sold by the mainstream media.

  • Gary - 2011-02-05 22:36

    Neso has done his homework. The mainstream media's Global Warming one-sided story doesn't portray the facts even remotely correctly. Do some homework away from the lies of the mainstream media, and many more highly qualified meteorologists will tell you a different story- or don’t believe them and do some of your own homework- there is so much data available to expose the Global Warming lies (hell, now that many folk are waking up to the fact that globally it’s actually been getting colder the last 3 years, they are starting to call it “Global Climate Instability”. The media has given such a biased story, that it amounts to nothing short of lies. It's not about Global Warming but global governance. Sorry, Alfred, but I think you're the one who's a low-IQ moron. Have a look at the REAL facts stop believing any cr*p you're sold by the mainstream media.

      Neso - 2011-02-06 06:46

      Right on Gary - Alfred, you need to wake up and smell the roses.

      Alfred - 2011-02-06 07:47

      Name one peer reviewed scientific journal, one national scientific institution, that denies anthropogenic global warming. When doing research on scientific issues it is best to go to scientific sources and not Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Rush Limbourgh, fox news, World Net Daily or your priest. Let me guess, you also reject evolution and think it is an atheist conspiracy. You unfortunately display the intelligence of the average american, too stupid to recognize the problem, nevermind doing anything about it. Your lack of intelligence is why human civilization will not survive. Stupidity is destructive.

  • Neso - 2011-02-06 07:32

    Well, well Alfred. Considering that you have absolutely no idea who I am nor what my credentials are, I tend to ascribe your vitriolic ad-hominem attack as little more than the usual doomsayers back-against-the-wall retort when faced with the awful realisation that they have been listening to pseudo-scientists and politicians and really have no knowledge of the science behind climate change. For your information the vast majority of real scientists and meteorologists (those who don’t arse-creep to the political mainstream for their funding) do not subscribe to anthropogenic global warming (sic!) nor do they subscribe to the idea that if we taxpayers drop a cool US$ 75 trillion into the coffers of the Church of Gore, and its thieving cohorts, we can turn aside or stop the natural processes of nature. For your information, CO2 is not a pollutant – it is a naturally occurring gas essential to life as we know it. Try reading some factual data. It’s no fairy tale that increases in temperatures (there is no such thing as GLOBAL warming, OK?) precede increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Correlation does not show causation. And, nixcroft, Nature didn’t sequester all its CO2 underground so we can only have oxygen to breathe. CO2 is here all around us and simply put, if it wasn’t, and we had no CO2 trigger, we would all stop breathing. The IPCC has been misleading you and thousands of others. The impression they give is that today’s CO2 levels were previously sustained on low levels but have now shot up in dramatic fashion to all of 380 ppm! The twist in the tail is that despite a leap from 5000 ppm to 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period (500+ million years ago) there was no corresponding rise in temperature – dinosaurs didn’t cook and the sky didn’t fall. If an increase in CO2 leads to rising temperatures then imagine how hot Earth must have been with CO2 at 7000 ppm – 18 times higher that it is now. Dramatic temperature rises are a myth – so are rising sea levels, melting glaciers, vanishing ice-caps. I have neither the time nor the inclination to rewrite the entire book on climate change and the global warming scam. I suggest you do some objective reading yourself.

      Alfred - 2011-02-06 09:28

      So where are the scientific references? Not one. Just blather. So do I listen to Neso on the Crackpot lunatic fringe or the American Academy of sciences, Nasa, Nature, Science, American Scientist, every national scientific institute in the developed world, satellite images from the last 40 years, every metrological institute in the developed world, gee.... I don't know. So you seem to have found proof that there is no link between CO2 and global warming a link which 85% of all accredited scientists, stupidly missed. I think you should get it published in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. For your discovery you should win the Nobel Prize. So somehow Gore and the solar industry in a massive conspiracy managed to outbid big oil and all the worlds industrialists to buy well over 85% of the worlds meteorologists, theromodynamicists, physicists, geologists and all the national scientific institutes in the world. Talk about delusions of grandeur, do you really think you have the knowledge and intellect to rewrite the entire book on climate change. While you're at it why not rewrite thermodynamics, wait! how about all of physics, I mean how about that General Relativity what a load of crock, and obviously biology, I mean how about evolution, that's another conspiracy. So the CO2 level was 7000ppm in the Cambrian period but average global temperatures were much the same as today? And all of science is oblivious to this fact. And you read this where? I would love to know but of course you are too busy to quote your sources. Typical ignorant redneck. Missing Bush much are we?

      Alfred - 2011-02-06 13:46

      US$ 75 trillion??? Maths not your stong point?

  • Mwalimu - 2011-02-06 17:26

    Yes Alfred. That's about the size of the loot your Guru wants the world to 'donate' to his bank account. It's a figure that has been mentioned ad nauseum by both doomsayers and the intelligentsia.

      Alfred - 2011-02-06 23:45

      In study after study it has been shown that people that understand evolution as observed fact have higher I.Q.'s than creationists. Same goes for spherical earth and flat earth, or heliocentricity and geocentricity, atheist and theists, and those that understand anthropogenic global warming and those that deny it. For instance Mwalimu seems to think that global warming is actually a giant conspiracy hatched by Al Gore to somehow extract $75 trillion or $75 000 000 000 000, (the USA GDP. 2010 $14. 660 trillion or $14 660 000 000 000) from the citizens of this planet and deposit it into his own bank account. (Another denier with low maths comprehension.) He actually believes that the reason all the scientific institutes in the developed world, all the prestigious scientific journals like Nature, Science, most prestigious university science departments, all those that understand that the evidence of global warming is overwhelming, in fact the entire higher end of the intelligence spectrum, have actually been bought or brainwashed by Al Gore. Way to wacky for any intelligence to take seriously, adding yet more evidence indicating that deniers occupy the lower end of the intelligence spectrum. What this idiot is seemingly unaware of is that the first paper to be published on global warming were over 30 years ago, so no, it was not Al's idea. Every conceivable cause including the ones that the plebs claim is the phenomena overlooked by stupid, ignorant scientists, that is the real cause of global warming, like sunspots, natural warming cooling cycles like iceages, or el nino, etc. have been taken into consideration by scientists and they have still arrived at the anthropogenic conclusion. One thing that scientists aren't, contrary to american popular belief, is stupid. The average I.Q. of members of the American Academy of Sciences is 145, that of those with PhD's in science is 125, that of the population in general 100. Less than 5% of those in the American academy of Sciences deny anthropogenic global warming, less than 30% of science PhD's and more than 60% of the general public. A funny thing about deniers is they mostly occupy the right wing side of the political spectrum, indicating that their conclusions are politically and not scientifically based, as they like to claim. This also indicates that the right wing occupies the lower end of the intelligence spectrum.

  • Gary - 2011-02-07 02:00

    Alfred, you sound like you’re taking this way too personally... neither Neso’s nor my IQ, nor what anyone believes about evolution, nor anyone’s political inclination really have any bearing on the issue. Please let’s keep to science, ease off on the personal attacks and keep it clean. If you're basing your understanding (and evidently very strong opinion) on scientific journals that are owned directly or indirectly by the same mainstream media that brainwashes everyone on TV, the newspapers and magazines... then you're also wasting your time in getting a real unbiased, objective second scientific opinion. All those stats you are throwing around so liberally are from the same mainstream media sources too. "Peer review" is a farce if there ever was one- most of it's done for mates by mates. Anyone could write a load of total bollox and have one of their mates review it and give it the thumbs up. Please please please, do some of your own homework and stop believing everything that is sold to you by the mainstream media, and do some thinking for yourself... and think about some of the accepted facts (accepted, even by pro-global warming scientists) - like the fact that it’s been a whole lot warmer in the earth’s very recent history- but before industrialisation started.

  • Gary - 2011-02-07 02:04

    There are hundreds of websites (many with very experienced and reputable scientists involved that say that CO2 isn’t the problem)- for example - have a look at and even Facebook groups like the group that talk about things that the mainstream media somehow omit to publish. Don’t get me wrong- I’m all for saving the environment and the planet and all that sort of stuff- but this whole CO2 farce isn’t about saving the planet- it’s about the UN (and the fat cats who control them) getting funding and control- on a global scale. Incidentally, the advice about not believing the mainstream media applies to almost everything nowadays- as it always has- as Thomas Jefferson said: "Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.". Have a look outside of the box that the mainstream media has you in.

  • Gary - 2011-02-07 02:11

    I see it doesn’t like links being posted. Let’s have another go... There are hundreds of websites (many with very experienced and reputable scientists involved that say that CO2 isn’t the problem)- for example scienceandpublicpolicy(,)org - have a look at scienceandpublicpolicy(,)org(slash)originals(slash)magnitude_and_rate_of_climate_changes(,)html and even Facebook groups like the (PROMOTE CLIMATE TRUTH) group that talk about things that the mainstream media somehow omit to publish. Don’t get me wrong- I’m all for saving the environment and the planet and all that sort of stuff- but this whole CO2 farce isn’t about saving the planet- it’s about the UN (and the fat cats who control them) getting funding and control- on a global scale. Incidentally, the advice about not believing the mainstream media applies to almost everything nowadays- as it always has- as Thomas Jefferson said: "Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.". Have a look outside of the box that the mainstream media has you in.

  • Gary - 2011-02-07 02:48

    There are many more: www(,)nipccreport(,)org climaterealists(,)com www(,)weatheraction(,)com

  • Gary - 2011-02-07 02:58

    Here's a nice quote from one of them: "In June 2009, the first full NIPCC report was published by The Heartland Institute. It is titled Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The new report, some 880 pages in length, is the most comprehensive critique of the IPCC's positions ever published. It lists 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries and presents in an appendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.""

      Alfred - 2011-02-07 10:59

      The Heartland Institute is funded by ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel and big industry players. from wikipedia The Heartland Institute is a libertarian[2][3][4] American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. The Institute is designated as a 501(c)(3)non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and advised by a 15 member board of directors, which meets quarterly. As of 2008, it has a full-time staff of 30, including editors and senior fellows.[2] The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, information technology and free-market environmentalism. In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms.[5][6][7] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics.[8] The Heartland Institute is not, I repeat NOT a scientific institute. Its a political institute, an extreme rightwing political institute. Don't take this personally but only a complete moron would take them seriously. Watch Fox News much? Yeah Glenn Beck is certainly "outside the box". And their list of 31 478 so called scientists has been exposed as a complete fraud. ( Your understanding of the scientific process is completely lacking. Peer review is absolutely central to the scientific process. Another thing, that whole UN and Al Gore thing, well conspiracy theorists are not noted for their intelligence or for that matter their sanity. The mainstream media thing, well actually its owned by big business, not the UN or Al Gore. By the way, stupidity is winning, the USA has torpedoed all international attempts at global warming mitigation. Denialism is about greed and rampant consumerism. Fucking american pigs are destroying civilazation. You and many of the above posters' level of intelligence is to low to sustain civilization, so we're fucked. Stupidity is destructive, lucky I have chosen not to have children.

  • Gary - 2011-02-07 17:15

    Yes, especially lucky for the rest of us on the planet, thank you. Kindly explain to me the freely available UAH satellite temperature plots, if you would, that very clearly show that temperature has been falling over the last three years, in spite of CO2 levels continuing with their upward trend? Please don't use Wikipedia as a reference, because it's written by Joe Public who thinks he understands something, but frequently doesn’t know the subject properly- consequently it’s fraught with inaccuracies or blatant errors and information from Wikipedia shouldn’t be used in anything more than a school project. Thanks in advance.

      Alfred - 2011-02-07 19:33

      Ooh! I think you're onto something there. Freely available satellite data that apparently shows the world is actually cooling and all the top meteorologists and physicists including NASA missed it. They must all be blind, stupid and ignorant or maybe bought out by old Al and the UN. So the world is actually getting colder, I mean today is definitely colder than yesterday. How could all those idiot scientists with their PhD's have missed it. Lucky we have you to bring it to our attention and expose those scientists for their ignorance and incompetence. Be so kind as to point out exactly what is factually incorrect in that Wikipedia quote on the Heartland Institute. I see you didn't bother to mention the other source, ( Funny thing about Wikipedia is that in studies it has been shown to be as factually reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica. By the way the Joe public you referred to, describes you to a tee.

      Alfred - 2011-02-08 18:13

      So Gary thinks Wikipedia is unreliable and instead he recommends Facebook groups. He rejects all the prestigious scientific journals and publications like Nature, Science, American Scientist and the meteorological equivalents plus all the prestigious scientific institutes like the Academy of American Scientists, NASA, etc., espousing instead lunatic fringe crackpot pseudo-scientific sites like The Heartland Institute, scienceandpublicpolicy and Facebook groupings. Yeah he certainly fits the profile of deniers.

  • Gary - 2011-02-07 18:38

    You do have one thing right- big business (and it’s owners) own almost everything now, and that would include the UN and Al Gore. Once one can grasp this, one's perception of a most things will change significantly.

  • Neso - 2011-02-07 19:01

    OOOOh! Alfred is going for the 'back-to-the-wall' ad-hominem approach again. I just hate it when I have to lower myself to those standards but, heck! How can one argue / hold a discourse / discuss and/or have a meaningful exchange of ideas with a bone-head?

  • Gary - 2011-02-07 19:25

    I take it that you’ve actually read the page you referenced (the article on the-myth-of-controversy)– and, in particular, been thought the many interesting comments, discussions and links– many of provided by global warming sceptics? Do you have any mud to throw regarding the following website: ?

      Alfred - 2011-02-07 22:42

      So if some nutcase geocentrist or flat earther told you to go to a site would you bother? I certainly won't. Same goes for creationist sites, Crop circles, UFO's, faith healing, spirits and demons, cigarettes don't cause cancer sites, various magic and god sites. Apparently there is scientific evidence of spirit mediums that talk to the dead, would I go to their site? you gotta be kidding. Just hicks with delusions of intelligence amongst other delusions. Why waste time? Hey Neso is that ad-hominem enough for you?

  • Gary - 2011-02-08 00:15

    Considering that I have spent a lot of time studying both sides of the argument, and still take the time to have a careful look through what other folk’s points of view, especially if they are different to mine, I believe that would naturally give me a broader, more objective view than one who isn’t even open to discussing the possibility that he doesn’t know the full story. As someone who’s reasonably well educated (in several countries), and who’s travelled extensively (to close on 50 countries now) and who’s lived and worked in many of these, and who’s reasonably well aquatinted with very broad spectrum of people (because I have an open mind, and am interested to see why they believe or understand things differently to myself), I’ve been fortunate to have been able to experience and see a lot with my own eyes and formulate opinions based on more than what is fed to me on television. A lot of what I see doesn’t add up to what’s constantly force-fed to us as “facts” from experts... and although maybe the sceptics group does have some embellishment here-and-there, from what I’ve seen, there is a lot more of it on the pro-Global Warming group’s side- including a lot of data that’s fudged and purposefully miss-represented- which is something that naturally makes me question the real motives.

  • Gary - 2011-02-08 00:18

    When I see storied of 500 penguins freezing to death in a small local newspapers, or personally experience snow in London as early as October, or have old friends go skating on the roads in Holland, something that they haven’t been able to do since they were young, or have family in several countries complaining about the cold and ice and saying that it’s the coldest winter they’ve ever had, or find it’s snowing not far from Melbourne on Christmas day, or find that I’ve not needed to take the winter duvet off my bed this summer (which had never happened to me before), this all makes me question what is real and what isn’t. Regarding your faith in Wikipedia (“Wikipedia is that in studies it has been shown to be as factually reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica”)- perhaps this is true... because Encyclopaedia Britannica is a broad general-knowledge encyclopaedia, it doesn’t have a very much in the way of specific detail on any particular topic (you’ll be familiar with the phrase “Jack of all trades, expert of none”?), but that doesn’t really say anything does it? Speaking only for the material it contains relating to my profession, I find a lot of it looks like it’s been prepared by high-school kids – sure a lot of it has been cut and paste from books and is correct, but anything more than the basics or anything that can’t be cut and paste, there are lots of mistakes.

  • Gary - 2011-02-08 00:24

    My problem with your using Wikipedia as “fact” is was what distressed me, not so much the content of your link (perhaps also I don’t agree with a lot of what The Heartland Institute stands for either... though, this doesn’t stop me from listening and assessing, with an open mind, the arguments of people they’re aligning themselves with). Sure, perhaps they are supporting the sceptics for different agendas to mine, but who they support shouldn’t stop me from making up my own mind. So how many of these “top meteorologists and physicists” and NASA scientists do you know personally? Or does your perception of what all these people really believe hinge only on what the media tells you? I’m sorry to say, “bone-head” really doesn’t come close to doing justice here. It’s impossible to have an academic discussion with someone who battles to distinguish between the head and heart and continually resorts to straying off topic in what appear to be nothing more than brainwashed emotional outbursts. Alfred, a bit of constructive advice– limit your Internet usage to “safe” things– like downloading p0rn. Maybe, if you don’t have one already, consider getting yourself a blow-up doll to vent some of that frustration you seem to be harbouring. I’ve heard one can get blow-up goats too- which you may well find more appealing (?).

  • Alfred - 2011-02-08 23:00

    So Gary do you seriously deny that sea levels are rising (, that the artic and antartic ice is receding or thinning (, that glaciers are receding, that permafrost is melting for the first time in recorded history, that plant and insect species geographic and altitudinal distribution is moving hundreds of kilometers and hundreds of meters up leading to the destruction of millions of fur trees in Yellowstone national park, that bird migration timing is changing. Oh yeah, about that redneck hick statement that the world is actually cooling try this (

  • Alfred - 2011-02-08 23:16

    Americans are compelled to deny global warming otherwise they have to admit culpability, at least 25% culpability. Imagine being sued for 25% of all the construction costs incurred worldwide to mitigate sea level rising. Their culpability is far greater than 25%, because of their denial, all international attempt at mitigating the effects of global warming have been scuppered by the yanks. We all know how greedy the gluttonous yanks are, they claim to worship versions of the abrahamic god but in reality they worship money. In amerika nothing is more holy than profit, americans kill constantly for profit, make wars for profit, pollute and poison this planet for profit, step over the mutilated corpses of children for profit (selling cluster bombs to the israelis), and then display the most mindfucking delusions that they somehow represent the pinnacle of human rights. Americans are destroying the future of our children.

  • Gary - 2011-02-09 00:56

    I believe the sea level is going up in some places, and down in others- and I suspect this largely depends on whether the particular land mass in question is rising or subsiding. I have lived by the sea for most of my life, and have relatives who live on lagoons, and even in Fjords- and I can't say that, even since I was a kid, have I ever noticed that the sea level is any different in any of these places that I frequent. I have read that even Al Gore has (very recently) purchased himself a very big, smart home right on the beach- which only makes me wonder whether he really believe that the sea level is rising. Maybe there are some places in the world which are warmer... but from what I can tell , it’s generally accepted that it was a very much warmer everywhere in the world only a few hundred years ago - even warm enough for Vikings to farm in Greenland in the middle-ages. The polar bears and every animal species we have with us today survived that warm period- so it seems a bit dramatic to worry about a bit of permafrost melting now, when it would certainly have melted a whole lot more in the middle ages, and that without any industrialised CO2 emissions.

  • Gary - 2011-02-09 01:06

    Yes, I certainly believe America is the source of a lot of world problems. I’ve not read the whole thing yet, but if you want to get your blood boiling, have a look at this one (I suspect it may provide some better insights into current happenings in Egypt: ). Though, that having been said, besides being largely retarded, brainwashed and lied to by the mainstream media and not thinking very far, I don’t think they’re all necessarily as evil as what you think. I’m aware that many of them are tired of their family and friends being used as cannon-fodder to enforce the oil cartel’s and multinational’s interests. I know many of them are aware of what the real story is, and how America is being used as a tool by the very wealthy people who own many of the multinationals. Many Americans are unhappy with, and don’t trust their government- that’s why even some of most extreme Texans I know voted for Obama- they wanted out of the old-school club that has always owned and controlled the country. Unfortunately for them, their new leader is really just another yes-man for the same people who have always been in control (everyone thought Obama was an outsider, but in reality he’s been working for, and been groomed by a variety of Rockefeller-created foundations for 20 years)- which would help explain why he’s done a 180 on practically every election promise he made, and hasn’t really made any real changes (particularly good ones) to what Bush was doing.

  • Gary - 2011-02-09 01:26

    Bear in mind, like in any country… it’s the people who control the money source who are the ones who are really in power… and in America it is no different. There is a reasonably well known old quote to this effect by JP Morgan, or one of the Rothschilds: “Give me control over a country’s money supply and I care not who makes the laws.” In the states, it’s not the American govt that controls the money- it’s printing/supply, or the loans going to the American federal govt, the US banks or elsewhere. The people who control everything to do with the US$ is the US Federal Reserve- who most people, particularly Americans, mistakenly believe is owned by the govt/state/people- but it’s not- it’s completely privately owned- though, no one really knows by who- and it’s totally autonomous- it answers to nobody- not the president, not the govt, not the people. If you do some homework on the Fed and what it’s currently doing, you will see that there are very big problems coming home to roost for the American people- and unfortunately, the global knock-on is going to affect the whole world’s economy. From observing even mainstream media published facts, simple projections, and history, even a non-economics student can see that there’s going to be hell to pay very soon… which makes one have to question why these knowledgeable, massively big and controlling players are doing this- what seems to be- on purpose.

  • Gary - 2011-02-09 19:34

    It’s also articles like the ones in the news today that make me wonder how real this “Global Warming” really is: (“Blizzard roars through US's snow-weary midsection”). And if anyone wants to tell me that these frozen temperatures are because of WARMING, I would encourage them to get a better a grip on reality, or check themselves into somewhere that offers the facility of padded cells. Evidently temperatures can still be very cold, even with the current slightly elevated CO2 levels... which tends help support the fact that CO2 isn’t really the cause of the supposed warming. Even if the global temperatures were going up, which no doubt will happen from time-to-time- because it’s an ongoing cyclic process since the earth started its existence- I certainly don’t believe that CO2 is the cause. Going back in time, there’s evidence to support the belief that there have been periods in time where it has been warmer AND colder on the earth than today, with levels of CO2 significantly higher than today’s levels- so how can temperature be blamed on CO2?!?

  • Gary - 2011-02-09 19:59

    Here's a simple, but interesting website that seems to have some data and reasonably balanced reasoning presented on it (without much in the way of emotional hype, and hopefully without any political allegiance or, for that matter, supporters):

  • pages:
  • 1