guardian.co.uk — A total of 46 nations and 2.7 billion people are now at high risk of being overwhelmed by armed conflict and war because of climate change. A further 56 countries face political destabilisation, affecting another 1.2 billion individuals.This stark warning will be outlined by the peace group International Alert in a report, A Climate of Conflict
Nov 4, 2007 View in Crawl 4
cresscrowbitsNov 5, 2007
Who exactly does the 'agenda' of dealing with climate change benefit?I certainly don't know. But I can tell you who the agenda that debunking climate change benefits - the absurdly wealthy and powerful oil industry, and the vast swathes of poliitical, media and industrial bodies that it finances.Seriously though, I know I'd rather believe the guy who's telling me everything is fine and I should carry on as normal, but who should be I be more likely to believe - the scientists and the environmentalists who have nothing to gain from this than peace of mind or the industries that stand to lose billions if we believe them?
veloce09Nov 5, 2007
The comments to this article are extremely disturbing. Are people really still denying that anthropogenic global warming is real? You can debate policy all you want; after all, it is our role as citizens to tell the politicians where to put our money. But to say global warming is just fear mongering to get democratic votes... is immoral. I'm personally done paying any attention to comments on digg, but I made the mistake of reading these. The AAAC and NAS (look em up, d**kh**ds!) have stated its real, the AAPG (American Association of PETROLEUM Geologists) can't even bring themselves to oppose it. and USCAP, a bunch of the biggest gas guzzlers in the U.S., including Shell, BP America, and General Motors states :"The group's primary purpose is to call on the U.S. government to require significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions." Taken from the Wikipedia page on USCAP. You people are not qualified to be making statements that contradict an overwhelming amount of science and fact. So stop. read up on the subject, and realize the U.S. need to start thinking about some serious change, for our economy, and to set an example to developing nations, before they invest in so much unsustainable capital that its too late to turn back. These "benign" comments are f**king insanity.
veloce09Nov 6, 2007
The probability that AAAS and NAS are wrong about their strong statements supporting AGW is small, as these are the most credible professional science organizations out there. They have reputations to preserve. I'm sorry, but when you have almost unanimous evidence FOR something occurring that is going to seriously affect our lives, its not enough to say "Scientists are in the process of researching a lot of the claims made by AGW proponents." Of course they are. Scientific statements are always evaluated and critiqued endlessly. For god's sake, even the law of gravity is still being tested! The evidence for climate change, like the evidence for gravity, is extremely strong, but science, because of the laws of probability, is never completely sure of anything.
Closed AccountNov 6, 2007
Nope, not any more....They are pretty much the same thing.If you'd like to call me willfully ignorant, please do. But you did ask the question.BTW, any links relating to the peer review on radiative forcing?
Closed AccountNov 11, 2007
Love how you just inject your own reality into things
genotakerNov 26, 2007
veloce- Please don't patronize us with your Berkley or whatever commie school you came from propaganda. Your probably sitting in your parents basement blogging with one hand and jerking it with the other because you never get laid. Your reference to USCAP means nothing. If you new how the world worked, you would know that GE has a vested interest in future energy. After all, they manufacture the current technology and certainly want a say in the future as well. Same goes for BP with alternative fuels and GM with motor vehicle propulsion.
genotakerNov 26, 2007
Your right Wrongonce and once again,diarrhea mouth is wrong with his political left agenda