The devastation wrought by Typhoon Haiyan is both staggering in scope and heart breaking. At least 10,000 people have been killed, while millions have been displaced. Food and water is in short supply. There have been reports of wide-spread looting and shell-shocked survivors staggering across a devastated landscape “like zombies”.
There is little point in engaging in the sterile debate over whether or not to attribute this monster storm to climate change. Studies predict storms will become stronger as the globe warms:
“…future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre…” – Tropical cyclones and climate change, Nature Geoscience 3, 157 – 163 (2010)
Storms like Haiyan are what we can expect.
To those denying the seriousness of climate change, attempts to link the events in the Philippines with the well understood science are anathema. Apparently drawing a connection between unprecedented weather extremes and climate change is “insensitive” to the victims and politicises human tragedy.
Thus in typical fashion, the Murdoch owned Herald Sun (home to arch denier Andrew Bolt) rails against anyone who dares suggest there is a connection:
First it was Greens MP Adam Bandt who foolishly tried to somehow make Prime Minister Tony Abbott responsible — because of his government’s climate change policy — for the recent bushfire tragedy in New South Wales.
Now, as the Herald Sun reveals today, Greens Senator Richard Di Natale has drawn a link between the devastating Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines and the Federal Government’s plans to axe the carbon tax.
“You’ve got record storms in the Philippines and now you’ve got record stupidity from Tony Abbott, who’s basically going to unwind some of the world’s most ambitious and important climate change legislation,” Di Natale told the Herald Sun’s Phillip Hudson.
He then accused Mr Abbott of making no sense at all by taking an anti-science stance on climate change.
What is really stupid and makes no sense is this repeated use by the Greens of death and destruction to try to gain political advantage.
It is to be hoped Australians of all political persuasions see this unsavoury tactic for what it is — cheap opportunism of the sort to be deplored.
Bandt was wrong to make the link last month and Di Natale was misguided in following Bandt’s lead yesterday.
They both deserve our widespread condemnation for their ridiculously insensitive and hurtful statements.
Clearly the Greens are ideologues who will use any human tragedy, no matter how large the loss of life and property, for their own selfish political ends.
To silence those making a connection is a political act. The very last thing sceptics want is the public drawing connections between extreme weather events, climate change and the inadequecy of Tony Abbott’s laughable “direct action plan” (or more broad scale policy failures).
Perhaps the editor of the Herald Sun should pay attention to the words just spoken by the Philippine representative, Yeb Sano, at the latest round of climate change negotiations in Warsaw:
To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I dare you to get off your ivory tower and away from the comfort of you armchair. I dare you to go to the islands of the Pacific, the islands of the Caribbean and the islands of the Indian ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels; to the mountainous regions of the Himalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods, to the Arctic where communities grapple with the fast dwindling polar ice caps, to the large deltas of the Mekong, the Ganges, the Amazon, and the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned, to the hills of Central America that confronts similar monstrous hurricanes, to the vast savannas of Africa where climate change has likewise become a matter of life and death as food and water becomes scarce. Not to forget the massive hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the eastern seaboard of North America. And if that is not enough, you may want to pay a visit to the Philippines right now.
Sano wept as he described the devastation.
He also made clear the link between climate change and Haiyan:
“The science has given us a picture that has become much more in focus. The IPCC report on climate change and extreme events underscored the risks associated with changes in the patterns as well as frequency of extreme weather events. Science tells us that simply, climate change will mean more intense tropical storms. As the Earth warms up, that would include the oceans. The energy that is stored in the waters off the Philippines will increase the intensity of typhoons and the trend we now see is that more destructive storms will be the new norm.”
Sano pleads for the world to “end the madness”:
“What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness. The climate crisis is madness. We can stop this madness. Right here in Warsaw.”
We await the condemnation of Sano by the editors of the Herald Sun for making the link between climate change and the deaths of tens of thousands of his fellow citizens.
Let them call Mr. Sano an oppurtunist for begging the world to take serious action.
Or perhaps the editors of the Herald Sun should take up Mr. Sano’s invitation and get out of their ivory tower and see first hand the devastating impacts of climate change.
Watching the Deniers 
When I heard Sano make his speech I thought exactly the same thing with respect to the Coalition and the Murdoch media attempting to disconnect from human-caused climate change these climate-driven events.
It’s an utter abomination to politicise the matter by accusing the Greens and the world’s professional scientists of themselves “politicising” the subject when they simply draw attention to the facts – human-caused warming of the planet will manifest in multiple ways, including the increase in frequency and intensity of extreme events such as catastrophic wildfires and super storms.
I await with morbid curiosity the response of conservative deniers when large swathes of Australia are again hit by record droughts… At what point in the unfolding should scientists point out any statistical unusualness of such an event? In the first month? in the first two months? In the first six months? After a few years? Yes, we have often droughts of course, but we can freely point to uncharacteristic manifestation of such – will it ever not be “politicisation” to point out that climate change is happening?
Sano has the right of it when he speaks of the denial and the non-action: we should stop this madness.
…
freely… …easily>…http://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12219 ( too late for AR5)
Kerry A. Emanuel1
Abstract
A recently developed technique for simulating large [O(104)] numbers of tropical cyclones in climate states described by global gridded data is applied to simulations of historical and future climate states simulated by six Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) global climate models. Tropical cyclones downscaled from the climate of the period 1950–2005 are compared with those of the 21st century in simulations that stipulate that the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases increases by Graphicover preindustrial values. In contrast to storms that appear explicitly in most global models, the frequency of downscaled tropical cyclones increases during the 21st century in most locations. The intensity of such storms, as measured by their maximum wind speeds, also increases, in agreement with previous results. Increases in tropical cyclone activity are most prominent in the western North Pacific, but are evident in other regions except for the southwestern Pacific. The increased frequency of events is consistent with increases in a genesis potential index based on monthly mean global model output. These results are compared and contrasted with other inferences concerning the effect of global warming on tropical cyclones.
Graphic = 8.5Wm2
Events in the Philippines are heartbreaking.
Andrew Bolt is a tool who simply serves his masters. He’s not going to change his stance regardless of how much evidence is provided. He’s locked himself in to an intractable – and mostly inarticulate – point-of-view. There will continue to be an audience that has its world-view iterated by the nasty myopia Bolt peddles. But it has a limited lifespan. The reality reshaping the globe can only be ignored for so long. Murdoch’s newspapers are in significant decline that may be propped up for a while longer, but most things arrive sooner or later at their endgame.
My personal attitude to Bolt is much like it is towards John Howard. Bolt and Howard are mostly irrelevancies that seek nothing more than the satiation of their own self-interest. Howard in his dotage has to toddle off overseas to dribble unoriginal non-sense so he can feel appreciated by like-minded peers. It is pathetic and mostly worth ignoring.
It is also pathetic that Tony Abbott’s key priority for his new government is to dismantle (democracy!) the price on carbon pollution & an ETS. His assault on science, climate authorities, & CSIRO was to be expected. Just like Bolt doesn’t allow facts to get in the way of a story, Abbott doesn’t want evidence to influence public policy.
Prime-ministers, like tawdry columnists, come and go. The challenge is to make sure political pressure is applied to ensure the bastards don’t get away worth too much over the next few years.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-climate-plan-to-be-tested-20131105-2wzfh.html
Tony Abbott’s claim that his ”direct action” policy would cut national greenhouse gas output by 5 per cent within the decade through tree plantings and paying polluters to cut emissions, is to be tested in public hearings designed to prove it is a waste of money.
Greens leader Christine Milne will unveil plans on Wednesday to establish a full Senate inquiry into the $3.2 billion direct action program with a view to taking expert evidence from scientists and economists as well as from key industry representatives.
The development is aimed at debunking the Coalition claim that it is more effective and less costly than an internationally linked emissions trading scheme.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/international/actions/countries-acting-now
Some of the content on this page is no longer current. The climatechange.gov.au website is being revised, and content will be amended. New website content will be available soon.
Most countries–and all the major emitters– are acting now. Countries have a tailored mix of actions in place. Carbon pricing is in place in many countries. Investment in clean energy and energy efficiency continues to grow.
Many countries–and all the major emitters–are acting now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Countries have started this transformation to take advantage of the opportunities stemming from the next stage of global development that will be powered by clean energy.
A broad range of countries have introduced, or are planning, market based emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes. Australia’s top five trading partners–China, Japan, the United States (US), the Republic of Korea and Singapore–and another eight of our top twenty trading partners (New Zealand, the UK, Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada) have implemented or are piloting carbon trading or taxation schemes at national, state or the city level.
Many countries have renewable energy targets, including fifteen of Australia’s top twenty trading partners. Energy performance standards for appliances, buildings and industrial plants, as well as incentives for the use and development of low emission products and technologies are now widespread.
sounds like action is being taken will have to delete any reference to that
PRIME Minister Tony Abbott has ruled out any extra efforts to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions beyond the 5% reduction target by 2020.
Mr Abbott made the comments in Canberra on the opening of the 44th Parliament, in the lead-up to the United Nation’s climate meeting in Warsaw, which no elected Australian officials will attend.
Despite pledging before the election the Coalition would pursue the existing range of reductions, up to 20% reductions in emissions by 2020, Mr Abbott ruled it out today.
Spruiking his promise to repeal the carbon tax, he said the Federal Government would not be attempting to reduce emissions, in the absence of “absolutely clear evidence” other countries were also reducing emissions.
http://theconversation.com/groupthink-perfected-how-australia-is-isolating-itself-over-action-on-climate-change-20054
The Australian groupthink
how many of the crap ideas put up here by trolls have come from the Australian?
A all of them
@- “We await the condemnation of Sano by the editors of the Herald Sun for making the link between climate change and the deaths of tens of thousands of his fellow citizens.
Let them call Mr. Sano an oppurtunist for begging the world to take serious action.”
I am sure that they will be too polite to be so blatantly crass.
Other commentators however may not share the refined sensibilities of the Australian media.
From – wattsupwiththat – thread – some-historical-perspectives-on-typhoon-haiyan-yolanda/#comments
Richard Sharpe says:
November 11, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Typhoon Haiyan: Philippines climate chief Yeb Sano makes emotional plea for climate change action
The last desperate stand of ratbags.
hunter says:
November 11, 2013 at 8:18 pm
The frustrating thing when a high level insider like Yeb Sano makes a plea like this is that he is diverting attention from his failure to help prepare his nation for the inevitability of storms. This is not the worst storm to have ever hit the Philippines. It will not be the last.
If he is as educated as he claims, he should know this.
Why did he not help prepare people in vulnerable areas better?
Why is he pursuing this course instead of actually helping his nation?
Why is he making statements that are not supported by history or fact?
Government inaction but i doubt anything would have prepared them for this
http://theconversation.com/climate-change-and-government-inaction-conspired-against-philippines-20073
Being old and pessimistic, I fear that the anti climate change action group has won the day. Significant coordinated action on a global scale has been successfully delayed so that we will be left with little choice but to accept climate engineering solutions. Fossil fuel industries will continue to extract and consumers (us) continue to burn the stuff, and we will rely upon shooting chemicals into the atmosphere. It really saddens me that politicians display compassion and sympathy to the cyclone victims in the Philippines while refusing to acknowledge the role of carbon pollution in driving the calamitous event.
I’m watching Danny Price push ‘direct action’ on Lateline and I simply cannot find the words for the mind- and truth-pretzelation in which this guy is indulging.
I seriously hope that someone with decent economic credibility goes to town on his garbage.
…And contrast Price’s idiocy with Ian Dunlop – a former Shell executive and head of the Australian Coal Association – who is now telling Alberici how urgent it is that climate change is addressed, and that industry must bite the bullet.
If only there was a three-way conversation with Price, Dunlop, and James Hansen…
Ahhh… the superannuation funds are right behind Dunlop. It seems that the real long-term money, the real economic hard-heads, know exactly what’s coming.
It’s only the short-term profit takers who are denying global warming. And our government is completely in their pocket.
I recommend that people watch both interviews when they’re up on iView.
As true as that statement is I am sure you realise that of the people who need to be told this:
One half will say that the increase in hurricane activity is natural
The other half will say it’s all the fault of the gays
entertainment break
The SCD gives voice to the lies and distortions of the climate zombies under the plea of debate over unsettled science.
at least they have a man of integrity writing the wednesday column
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/weve-lost-sight-of-our-responsibilty/2082310/
Interesting article, that shows that it’s not just the burning of FF, in this case it’s coal, that is endangering the ecosystems. It is claimed in the article that for every 50 million tons of Queensland coal loaded onto trains, that only 49 Million tons are off loaded onto bulk carriers. The missing 1 million tons, is either blown or washed out to sea (the Great Barrier Reef) in the form of dust, where it settles, waiting to be agitated up again with the next storm surge. What’s even more distressing, is that with the projected increase in new mines, that 1 million tons, will increase to 5 million tons.
“Coal dust is particularly toxic to living things containing nasty elements like mercury, lead, cadmium and chromium just to name a few deadly agents and the residents and fishermen living around Australia’s main coal export port can no longer eat their local sea life, at least not if they care about their health.
Buried in Black Dust
Coal vs. the Great Barrier Reef
by THOMAS C. MOUNTAIN
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/12/coal-vs-the-great-barrier-reef/
For those who would argue that there is no connection between Climate Change and extreme events, the “gold standard” of scientific publications would beg to disagree:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/full/nature03906.html
And claiming that pointing out this (obvious) connection is insensitive political grandstanding, is akin to blaming the doctor of someone who has just died of lung cancer, for pointing out to the bereaved son, that if he continues with his smoking habit, he will likely die the same way.
Pointing this out is not grandstanding, it is attempting to save lives; and what better time to do so, but when people are focused on the issue?
‘Missing Heat’ Discovery Prompts New Estimate of Global Warming: Arctic Warming Fast
Nov. 13, 2013 — An interdisciplinary team of researchers say they have found ‘missing heat’ in the climate system, casting doubt on suggestions that global warming has slowed or stopped over the past decade.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131113092217.htm
So if someone says that global warming stopped in 1998, they are just plain nuts. (But then again, we all knew that already)
RC write up
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/
more http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/11/the-hiatus-and-the-arctic.html
My thoughts on this as well
if the paper holds up this is scary
http://planet3.org/2013/11/13/thie-disappearing-hiatus/
pickled oceans
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24904143
clarke and dawe
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-14/clarke-and-dawe–an-honest-assessment-project-by/5091772
inevitable
http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2013/11/learning-how-to-die-in-anthropocene.html
Will Australia cause a slip on the climate change stepping stones in Warsaw?
United Nations climate talks aim to make ground on a new global deal as Australia’s rhetoric turns negative
Share 43
1
inShare
1
Email
Stepping stones across a river after heavy rain Photograph: Steve Bentley/Alamy
The United Nations climate change negotiations taking place in Warsaw have been trivially described as a “stepping stone” towards the next big global deal to cut emissions which, some hope, will be greeted with a giant rubber stamp in Paris in 2015.
But stepping stones can be slippery buggers – a careless stride, a bad choice of footwear or a shove from a mischievous co-traveller and you’re in the rushing rapids either to sink without trace or to desperately grab for the nearest immoveable object.
And so it is with the Warsaw talks. Unless the stepping stones are carefully negotiated then the risk of Paris turning into some kind of “Copenhagen II: Failure Strikes Back” will look increasingly likely.
But as Australia joins the 190-plus other countries navigating the climate stepping stones, it’s hard to know whether the Aussies are wearing rubber thongs (those are flip-flops to foreigners) or appropriately stout walking boots. Australia may even be readying its elbows to nudge a few people off balance.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has decided his government will not be sending any ministers to Poland’s capital, leaving the job of negotiating instead to a diplomat – the experienced Justin Lee, the country’s climate change ambassador.
Many have seen the decision as a reflection of the Abbott Government’s antipathy towards genuine climate change action. Reports suggest that Abbott has also ruled out Australian support to financially compensate poorer countries for the climate change impacts.
Question marks on climate policy
Back in Canberra, the future for domestic climate change and renewable energy policy has got more question marks over it than the Riddler’s wardrobe collection.
The chief reason for Australia’s politician-free delegation, is that Mr Abbott’s cabinet, including his Environment Minister Greg Hunt, are busy trying to push through laws to repeal the country’s carbon price legislation and replace it with a “direct action plan”.
Instead of charging the polluters such as coal-fired power generators a market-set price for their emissions and then spending that money on tax cuts and clean energy funding, “direct action” will spend $3.2 billion from taxpayer funds on projects that will help lower emissions.
The Abbott Government says it is confident the policy will deliver its promised cut of five per cent on Australia’s emissions by 2020 (from the 2000 baseline), but two studies have suggested a few billion more would need to be spent. Mr Abbott says no more money will be spent, which means the emissions promise will slide.
Climate Action Tracker – a team of scientists and analysts who monitor the impacts of policies on emissions and global warming – reported yesterday from Warsaw that the Abbott Government’s plans would see Australia’s emissions rise by 12 per cent by 2020.
This, the report said, was “consistent with a global pathway heading to temperature rises of 3.5 – 4C”. The report doesn’t count Australia’s greatest contribution to the climate problem – all the coal and gas which it drills, mines and exports – but then neither does the government.
As I discussed on Planet Oz a few days ago, just two recently approved coal mines in Queensland will emit 3.7 billion tonnes of CO2-e over their proposed 30-year life spans – the equivalent of six years worth of the United Kingdom’s greenhouse gas footprint.
Since being elected in September, the Abbott Government has also defunded its independent Climate Commission (which has re-emerged as the not-for-profit Climate Council), scrubbed the climate change department and slashed about $700 million from an agency to fund renewable energy research, development and deployment.
Mr Abbott has also backed away from more ambitious targets in the future “in the absence of very serious like binding commitments from other countries” which, in reality, is practically the same position taken by the previous government.
In signing the Copenhagen Accord, Australia also stands with 140 other countries in agreeing that global warming should be kept below 2C, even though current pledges make achieving this goal unlikely.
Last December, Australia announced it had signed up for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol where the five per cent cut sits alongside pledges from the rest of the world. This second stage started in January and will end in 2020, and commits Australia to cutting emissions to 99.5 per cent from their levels in 1990 (consistent with a five per cent cut with a baseline set at 2000).
This is a target which a review from the country’s Climate Change Authority, tasked by the previous government to advise on targets, described as “not credible”. The CCA will soon be abolished. Yet even this “not credible” target looks credible compared to the remarkable target Australia managed to squeeze from the first incarnation of the Kyoto Protocol.
Back in 1997, Australia’s delegation pulled what they saw as a masterstroke during post-midnight negotiations on the final day in Japan. Australia insisted on the inclusion of what later became known as the “Australia clause” – a clause which allowed countries with high emissions from land clearing to include those in their greenhouse gas accounts for the year 1990.
This was significant because 1990 was the baseline year for calculating emissions targets. The Australian delegation knew that the country’s emissions from land clearing dropped dramatically post-1990. This meant that reaching the agreed target of “cutting” emissions by 108% by 2008 to 2012 was, in effect, effortless.
Shadow environment minister at the time, Duncan Kerr, reportedly compared the “challenge” for Australia as being like a “three inch putt” in golf.
Warsaw’s key aims
But back to Warsaw (where I’ll be next week), where the main objective will be to set negotiations rolling towards a new agreement to be signed in 2015 and to take effect in 2020 when Kyoto runs out.
Countries won’t be asked to lay down targets in Poland (this could come at a meeting of world leaders called by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for next year) but negotiators will look to develop a methodology that can be used to decide a fair way to calculate future cuts for individual countries.
Alongside this, negotiators will also be looking to progress on a negotiating track known as “loss and damage” where developing countries (in particular small island states and countries such as the typhoon-ravaged Philippines) are compensated for climate change impacts.
If recent reports are to be believed, poorer countries around the world will get little sympathy from Australia, one of the world’s biggest coal exporters and where per capita emissions are among the highest on the planet.
Rhetoric sours on climate
In a report in The Australian newspaper, the Abbott Government is said to have already decided that it will not contribute money to any “wealth transfer” proposals being discussed in Warsaw.
Mr Abbott has described such measures as “socialism masquerading as environmentalism”. As for carbon markets, Mr Abbott says they area “a so-called market, in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one.”
Mr Abbott also denies a quarter of a century of science showing the link between global warming and the increased risk of bushfire in Australia, as does his environment minister Greg Hunt.
When Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on .
My apologies, this was a very poor cut & past of a piece submitted at the Warsaw Climate Change Conference. The links are http://climatenetwork.org/cop19-eco4-1/ and -8/. They make very sober reading and it is little wonder that Australia is generally being considered as something of a pariah at the conference.
This was forwarded to be by a delegate at the Warsaw Climate Change Conference. I believe it is from the conference newsletter – http://eco.climatenetwork/cop19-eco4/
I am an Australian. Which is quite an admission in these halls at the moment.
People keep coming up to me and asking what’s going on? Why is my government doing such terrible things on climate policy? Why are they so addicted to coal? Why are they so determined to go backwards? How can they trash their climate policies when the rest of the world is meeting here in Warsaw to try and move forward on climate? And particularly when our neighbouring countries, especially the Philippines, are suffering such devastation.
But the main question they ask me is – do the Australian people support all of this negativity and destruction?
The answer to that question is they categorically do not. The majority of Australian people do not support repealing the carbon price, trashing renewable energy support, dismantling the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and winding back support for a long-term target of reducing carbon pollution by 80% by 2050.
If you want evidence of that look no further than the story of Australia’s Climate Commission. One of the first things the new government did was shut down this publicly funded body. But within only one week, over 20,000 Australians donated to get this vital organization back on its feet.
Ordinary Australians are keen for action on climate change because we’ve lived through its beginnings. We’ve seen “one in a hundred year floods” happen in Queensland twice in a period of just twelve months. And in the same period Queensland copped it with Cyclone Yasi – the worst cyclone in nearly 100 years.
We’ve had the worst drought ever within the last decade – and parts of the country are in drought again. In Sydney, where I live, we just had devastating bushfires, in October – mid Spring! But of course none of this comes close to the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan.
Recent polling showed that the majority of Australians want a higher target (15% or 25%), as our country’s independent Climate Change Authority recommended. And 65% of people said they wanted stronger action on climate change.
The Coalition that Prime Minister Abbott leads have a long-standing policy of supporting this target range, set back in 2009, along with the conditions for moving up the range. We need immediate clarification from our the government on where they now stand.
Most Australians know it’s in our national interest to get serious about climate change. Not only because we along with so many of our neighbours are so vulnerable to climate change, but also because unless we increase our target and take more action, we’re in danger of falling behind the rest of the world.
So listen up, Prime Minister Abbott. We’re expecting you to come to the Ban Ki-moon Summit in September 2014. We’re expecting you to put a real target for 2020 on the table, along with long term goals for mitigation and climate finance that reflect Australia’s fair share. And we Australians will be pushing every day to make sure you do this. Starting this Sunday – where Australians in every corner of the country will be at a National Day of Action (www.theheat.org.au).
(This is an edited version of a statement by Julie-Anne Richards at yesterday’s CAN press conference.)
Climate Change has happened many times over the life of the earth and there were no humans around to cause that so I understand we are having some sort of an impact but is this us or just the climate changing as it has before. Our records show only a small time period if we could have recorded previous climate change it would show the same trend. There are other natural things, volcano’s, ocean’s etc which have the majority of the influence over the change. Our pollution is really just a drop in the ocean, that’s not to say we shouldn’t make an effort to look after the place we live but eventually we wont be able to live here not because of us but the earth’s cycle. We should be focusing on what we need to do to when earth wont support us anymore.
Indispensable discussion on Haiyan / Yolanda for the sanity-based community
nothing found ?