New Zealand defense report says climate change greatest security risk

[SunsetT]

On 12/11/2018 at 11:11 AM, Catoni said:

    

 

 

       Actually, I agree...    Did you know we have only ten years left to save the planet?  

 

    

 

  "Did you know we have only ten years left to save the planet?"

 

.....Correction!.......Only ten years left to save the human race.

[Catoni]

3 hours ago, SunsetT said:

  "Did you know we have only ten years left to save the planet?"

 

.....Correction!.......Only ten years left to save the human race.

Oh... another prediction.....  you mean like these predictions ....?

 

 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

    In 1970, These Predictions Were Made by The Elites at the First Earth Day:

 

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

 

[Scott]

Post violating Fair Use Policy and replies, removed.  

[BangkokBaksida]

On 12/6/2018 at 3:35 PM, mikebike said:

My question has always been, “even if you don’t ‘believe’, why risk it.?” Good ecological practices aren’t really all that difficult. I don’t get the resistance.

Your reasoning would be correct - if there were no cost to your so-called "good ecological practices".  The fact, though, is that at least for now, it costs a lot more to use renewable energy, which puts a huge burden, not on you and me, but on the poorest people in the world.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 6:16 PM, webfact said:

That underscored comments from Samoa's Prime Minsiter Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi who told Reuters in November that Australia and the United States should follow the lead of China and do more to prevent climate change, which would devastate many island nations.

China???????? 55555555555555555555

 

If climate change is such a real and present danger, why is sod all being done? If we are really in danger of imminent peril, why are petrol powered cars still running on the streets, why have all commercial air flights not been cancelled, why are they not breeding draught horses to power us as they put us back to pre industrialisation?

In fact, governments are doing zero that would actually make any difference at all. On talkback radio, everyone is complaining that they will find it harder to drive in cities because of cycle lanes, and everyone is buying cars, because the public transport service is a bad joke.

Even as they tout battery powered cars, which is the worst possible option- fuel cell technology is far better to reduce pollution- they are doing nothing to provide the necessary infrastructure to provide all the extra electricity needed.

As for this report coming out of defence, give me a break. Intelligence and the military is not something that goes together ( speaking as someone that was in the green machine for years ).

 

Mind you, if cutting pollution meant banning the phones that people spend hours on, I'd be all for it.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, SunsetT said:

  "Did you know we have only ten years left to save the planet?"

 

.....Correction!.......Only ten years left to save the human race.

As I look at the insanity that has gripped the human race in the past 10 years or so, the question I have to ask myself if humans deserve to survive.

We have polluted the planet to the point of ocean life collapse, covered the surface with garbage, breed uncontrollably, and then expect other people to support all the children, corruption is out of control, and we are exterminating many other species.

Perhaps Gaia has had enough of the parasite, and is now working to exterminate us.

[RickBradford]

 

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If climate change is such a real and present danger, why is sod all being done?

 

Well, that’s the key point - climate change isn’t a real and present danger; but the activists and other rent-seekers must try to portray it that way to keep their way of life ticking along.

 

The overwhelming likelihood, as suggested by a whole slew of analyses, is that climate change will prove to be a problem, but it is not the end of the world. Only Bob Geldof and Prince Charles think that.

 

Estimates of the likely economic impact of the climate change we are seeing now hover around a loss of 4% of world GDP by the year 2100 (at which time the world will be approximately five times richer than it is today). 

 

Say GDP is equivalent to 100 today; by 2100 it would have gone to 500, but losing 4% of that to climate impacts knocks that down to 480. Hardly a reason to start wailing about the fate of “our children and our children’s children” (B. Obama).

Not that the facts are going to stop the activists “demanding” action now; it’s what they do. 

 

Nor will facts stop the NGOs, the banks, reinsurance companies, law firms and bureaucrats from playing up climate “dangers” as much as they can; climate panic is all good value for them, no downside.

 

The gap between reality and activist agit-prop grows greater every day, and it’s costing us plenty. The burden of that, as always, falls on the world’s poor, not that the activists could care a jot about that.
 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

 

Well, that’s the key point - climate change isn’t a real and present danger; but the activists and other rent-seekers must try to portray it that way to keep their way of life ticking along.

 

The overwhelming likelihood, as suggested by a whole slew of analyses, is that climate change will prove to be a problem, but it is not the end of the world. Only Bob Geldof and Prince Charles think that.

 

Estimates of the likely economic impact of the climate change we are seeing now hover around a loss of 4% of world GDP by the year 2100 (at which time the world will be approximately five times richer than it is today). 

 

Say GDP is equivalent to 100 today; by 2100 it would have gone to 500, but losing 4% of that to climate impacts knocks that down to 480. Hardly a reason to start wailing about the fate of “our children and our children’s children” (B. Obama).

Not that the facts are going to stop the activists “demanding” action now; it’s what they do. 

 

Nor will facts stop the NGOs, the banks, reinsurance companies, law firms and bureaucrats from playing up climate “dangers” as much as they can; climate panic is all good value for them, no downside.

 

The gap between reality and activist agit-prop grows greater every day, and it’s costing us plenty. The burden of that, as always, falls on the world’s poor, not that the activists could care a jot about that.
 

 

 

 

As it always does, for as long as there have been poor humans. However, you are correct that the activists care not a jot about the poor, as long as they have a cushy life.

[RickBradford]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As it always does, for as long as there have been poor humans. However, you are correct that the activists care not a jot about the poor, as long as they have a cushy life.

Exactly,

 

Which makes it doubly nauseating that the activists always claim to be acting on behalf of the poor and the "marginalised".

 

They don't love the poor; they merely hate the rich.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Exactly,

 

Which makes it doubly nauseating that the activists always claim to be acting on behalf of the poor and the "marginalised".

 

They don't love the poor; they merely hate the rich.

Typical fact-free character assassination. 

[RickBradford]

On the contrary, an often-demonstrated phenomenon. George Orwell put it neatly:

 

"The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we', the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them', the Lower Orders." [Climate policy in a nutshell - RB] 

 

"On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred  ... against the exploiters."

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

On the contrary, an often-demonstrated phenomenon. George Orwell put it neatly:

 

"The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we', the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them', the Lower Orders." [Climate policy in a nutshell - RB] 

 

"On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred  ... against the exploiters."

This is your idea of evidence?

 

And even if it were, it says nothing about percentages.

 

And it says nothing about members of the ruling political order which Orwell was opposed to.

 

i guess you're not aware that George Orwell himself was a socialist. So is he confessing to being one of those "clever ones" who "are going to impose upon 'them", the Lower Orders"?

 

But if you want to consider evidence what real evidence might look like, how about this? Republicans now overwhelmingly disbelieve in Anthropogenic Climate Change. Democrats overwhelming believe in it. The members of which party are more in favor of foreign aid to poor nations?

[RickBradford]

Quote

Republicans now overwhelmingly disbelieve in Anthropogenic Climate Change. Democrats overwhelming believe in it.

 

This is your idea of evidence? I guess you're not aware that politicians routinely say things that they don't believe in, for purely political reasons.

 

It's plausible, even likely, that some US politicians dislike the idea of sending aid abroad, and use skepticism about climate change to justify their opposition.

 

Just as many activists claim that they are concerned about the effects of climate change on the world's poor, when their true agenda is to overturn free-market capitalism.

[ricklev]

On 12/11/2018 at 5:29 PM, Catoni said:

  Oh.... you like those COP conferences?  All the elite politicians and celebrities flying in to exotic locations in the world and meeting their fleets of airconditioned limousines ready to take them to their five star luxury hotels.  Their gravy train ! !  Going to their champagne and caviar banquets and laughing and slapping each other on the back... All the while talking about how us lower middle class taxpaying folks have to cut back OUR "elaborate" middle class working lifestyles...how us peons should not even be flying economy ..except maybe if they can hit us with big jumps in flight costs with Carbon Taxes added to the cost of our tickets for the fuel... (How's that working out in France lately?) 

     Here's a COP video for you....... 

 

 

    Exactly.... and that 0.8 degree increase (let's be generous and say 0.85) from 1880 - 2012 ...was following the ending of the L.I.A. which ended approx. 1850.   The L.I.A. was a 550 year bad colder spell with longer, colder winters, shorter growing seasons, failed harvests...  famine....    The Warming/Climate Change Alarmists want to return to that climate I guess...

 

[ricklev]

Do any of you remember the moment you came to believe that cigarettes are a major factor in causing lung cancer?  Why did you stop believing that the evidence was inconclusive and that there were strong disagreements among medical researchers about cigarettes and cancer?  What changed?  

 

More recently do you still believe the science is inconclusive on what causes ozone depletion and it's harmful effects on human life?  What changed your mind?

 

Just curious.......

[Catoni]

8 hours ago, ricklev said:

Do any of you remember the moment you came to believe that cigarettes are a major factor in causing lung cancer?  Why did you stop believing that the evidence was inconclusive and that there were strong disagreements among medical researchers about cigarettes and cancer?  What changed?  

 

More recently do you still believe the science is inconclusive on what causes ozone depletion and it's harmful effects on human life?  What changed your mind?

 

Just curious.......

   Comparing apples and oranges....

[Hummin]

8 hours ago, ricklev said:

Do any of you remember the moment you came to believe that cigarettes are a major factor in causing lung cancer?  Why did you stop believing that the evidence was inconclusive and that there were strong disagreements among medical researchers about cigarettes and cancer?  What changed?  

 

More recently do you still believe the science is inconclusive on what causes ozone depletion and it's harmful effects on human life?  What changed your mind?

 

Just curious.......

I grow up learning by word from my father, tobacco was harmful to the smokers, and surraunding people. I basicly told straight foreward that smokers was stupid people who should know better, and also pay people around them more respect by not smoking. Thats what he teach us. 

 

I understood quite young that human activity ruins our planet, since we had a lovely pond with alot of fish and kreyfish in it, and suddenly everything was gones after an electric company was built right next to one of the few small rivers going to it. We never got any proof what caused it, but after that I opened my eyes and see what we actually do in smal scale to our local flora and fauna. I do not care for the actual proof, because the way we are living is not sustainable for our planet, neither us. 

[bristolboy]

Ocean Warming Is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/climate/ocean-warming-climate-change.html

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 7:04 PM, bristolboy said:

This is your idea of evidence?

 

And even if it were, it says nothing about percentages.

 

And it says nothing about members of the ruling political order which Orwell was opposed to.

 

i guess you're not aware that George Orwell himself was a socialist. So is he confessing to being one of those "clever ones" who "are going to impose upon 'them", the Lower Orders"?

 

But if you want to consider evidence what real evidence might look like, how about this? Republicans now overwhelmingly disbelieve in Anthropogenic Climate Change. Democrats overwhelming believe in it. The members of which party are more in favor of foreign aid to poor nations?

LOL.

The "socialists" that seek to impose regulations on the lower masses are not really socialists, but bureaucrats, a peculiar form of humanity that ( IMO ) seeks to make everyone else miserable.

As for American aid; far as I know it's always with strings attached for the benefit of Americans. IMO, American aid has caused more problems for poor people than it has solved, being apparently used more to build palaces for dictators than hovels for the poorest.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 4:34 AM, Hummin said:

I grow up learning by word from my father, tobacco was harmful to the smokers, and surraunding people. I basicly told straight foreward that smokers was stupid people who should know better, and also pay people around them more respect by not smoking. Thats what he teach us. 

 

I understood quite young that human activity ruins our planet, since we had a lovely pond with alot of fish and kreyfish in it, and suddenly everything was gones after an electric company was built right next to one of the few small rivers going to it. We never got any proof what caused it, but after that I opened my eyes and see what we actually do in smal scale to our local flora and fauna. I do not care for the actual proof, because the way we are living is not sustainable for our planet, neither us. 

Cigarettes were commonly referred to as cancer sticks back in the early 70s, even by those smoking them.

Humans have only themselves to blame if it's all true and we are doomed as a species. Even now, with all the publicity, car companies sell millions of new petrol engine cars, and nothing practical is being done by any government to actually stop pollution.

If verbal hot air was actually a practical solution, those that pontificate on G W/ C C would have solved the problem long ago, but it's all that it is- more hot air.