Archive for December, 2007
Global Warming will kill us all. Pay No Attention to the facts.
According to Indur Goklany’s full research report on climate change, which points out how despite Al Gore’s graphs and the increase of the Earth’s population, human deaths due to weather have gone down over 93% since the 1920s.
If a global system of governmental control, redistribution of wealth, and the certainty of those little polar bears dying off wasn’t enough to convince you to worship at the alter of Global Warming, then perhaps you will change your mind when you are told that your Chevy Tahoe (or Toyota Tundra for those who want to start moving the blame to a foreign car company) is going to kill millions of people due to weather- related deaths caused by climate change.
Pay no attention to the recent report by the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, a grouping of 41 mainly free-market bodies, and their heretic claims. According to their report:
Average annual deaths from weather-related events in the period 1990-2006 – considered by scientists to be when global warming has been most intense – were down by 87% on the 1900-89 average. The mortality rate from catastrophes, measured in deaths per million people, has dropped by 93%.
According to Indur Goklany, a weather-related catastrophe expert based in the US, in the 1920s nearly 500,000 deaths per year due to weather and climate. The death toll between 2000-2006 is… are you ready? There was an average of 19,900 deaths worldwide due to weather or climate. Care to guess why this has dropped so much (despite the increase in world population)? Better warning systems, improved flood defenses (New Orleans anyone?), and “other measures.”
If you ask an environmentalist, they will probably say something like what this one said:
Have these numbers been adjusted for the less severe winters and lack of floods in populated areas of the world? After all there will be fewer deaths from disasters that are minimized by climate change. The same goes for technological advances and warning systems being refined every year saving lives. These outliers are possibly three of many things that could skew this data.
Oddly enough, the numbers are the numbers. When it comes to actual information, the numbers do not need to be “adjusted” to fit into what you want them to say.
Well, if the numbers are what they are, then perhaps the source of the study should be attacked (because, you know, when studies are funded by Environmental Groups, that is questioned too, right?). Or, as usual, if you can’t attack the group/person directly, you go after those they are associated right? (If that doesn’t work, you could always just call the scientist or group a Hack, but I digress.)
Though the International Policy Network has said “Funding for this project has come entirely from private individuals and foundations.” Greenpeace has already come out to attack this study and the International Policy Network (one of the Civil Society organizations) saying:
“The International Policy Network is known for being in the pay of the world’s biggest oil company,”
I wonder if I can find the last time Greenpeace discredited an organization because of their heavy funding from environMental companies or organizations…
(Editor’s Note, I have looked for the rest of Greenpeace’s quote there, as I would like to have the full context. If anyone finds it, I would gladly include it in its full context.)
|PAST User Comments|
Comment by GUEST on 2008-01-28 15:30:56
Spelled: New Orleans.
Relying on CSCCC reports is looking pretty shakey for your argument. They have many smarties on their roster, but it seems the more I look into it, the more big business and petrochemical money I find. As for that Greenpeace quote you were asking for, I believe that’s all the quote there was. But if you look http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/exxon-secrets-analysis-of-fun
you may find a list of “private foundations” that have received Exxon contributions.
I wonder if that’s what IPN meant when they said “Funding for this project has come entirely from private individuals and foundations.”
It’s a crime! Follow the MONEY! Your willingness to accept their confounding of the facts doesn’t make sense. You’re not on their payroll! They don’t care about you or anyone that is not strategic to their money or power.
Comment by admin on 2008-02-06 21:46:13
The moment Al Gore and other Church of Global Warming disciples question the motives of Greenpeace along with Exxon when reviewing the funding of research, actual science will move forward. I’m sure you can agree with me that Greenpeace should question their own motives when it comes to funding research, Eh?
Comment by Anonymous on 2009-09-16 16:53:45
You have to take modern technological advances into account. It’s not skewing the facts; it’s thinking critically and reviewing the variables.
In a world… where being neutered grants you carbon credits… one man has the courage to stand up to the… awha hell, this is just wrong.
Though, the answer to most environmental problems involves taking more of your money (as the expensive of Kyoto has clearly been worth it for 2 of the 15 EU countries that reduced their emissions), this is apparently the case when it comes to having children too.
A proposal by Barry Walters, an associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia (and backed by Garry Egger, adjunct professor of health sciences at Southern Cross University in New South Wales, Australia) believes a tax on having children would be very helpful. Dr. Walters believes that every family that chooses (freedom of choice) to have more then a specific number of children should be charged a carbon tax. To give an incentive, those who buy condoms or become spayed or neutered (or to use the politically correct term: Sterilization Procedures) would receive carbon credits.
“Population control seems to have gone off the rails in the last 30 years,” Dr Egger says.
“It’s almost forbidden to talk about it these days. It’s almost like smoking – you have to go out in the alleys to talk about it.
“And it’s obvious that population is not going to be controlled by itself or indeed by politicians or economists because … the easy way to make an economy grow is just to have more people.
“And we’re ignoring the fact that the downside of that is the pollution and the carbon footprint that’s created by increasing the population.”
According to Dr. Egger, two babies per couple would be a reasonable “Tax-Free” number of children, because it is a “replacement value”.
Now, I am not a baby expert or a doctor from Australia, but I am a thinker… and form my understanding of the whole population thing is if every couple only has two children, the population will go down. Some people don’t have children, some people die before they can have children, heck, even some children even die before they become adults. If we look at the numbers, a birth rate of 2.1 to 2.2 is required to maintain (not increase) the population as it is.
How much do Dr. Egger and Dr. Walters want to take from you? If you have a third child, the cost would be $5,000 at birth and $800 per year per child. I am not an economist, but I am a thinker, but the way I understand it, as people become adults, they become productive, contributing members of society (well, everyone but hippies, and they smell) and contribute to the country by paying their own taxes. The more people you have, the more people you can tax. As Europe is discovering now (with their negative population growth), it becomes more difficult to pay for all these wiz-bang government programs, if you have less people to tax.
Now, try talking to an environMentalist, and ask them how many children a couple should have. You will get the same response:
“Two. There is no need to have more then what will keep the population where it is” (or something along this line)
The correct response be “I believe in a freedom of choice when it comes to having children, and a couple should have as many children as they want.” Shouldn’t it? Perhaps those who feel they don’t pay enough in taxes should have the freedom to choose to pay more into the government. Or perhaps the world would truly be better off if environMentalists didn’t reproduce.