Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
UN beleives that natural disaters aren't natural; Blames America for them
Topic Started: Jan 21 2005, 02:41 PM (1,001 Views)
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
U.N.: No 'Natural' Disasters?

Anybody else think that the UN is completly useless?

First of all, global warming, if it is happening, is probably nautral. We are just coming out of an small ice age that happened from the, I believe, 1500's to the 19th centery. That was a JEOPARDY clue.

Just the fact that the US is responsible for earthquakes, and tsunamis is redicules. They arn't cause be changes in the climate. As for the weather, Earth has climate cycles, like I said earlier. We are just in a cycle of strange weather. It's completly natural.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The UN is an example of what happens when the inmates are charged with running the asylum.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
CBS News
Quote:
 
Global warming – not a cataclysmic collision with an asteroid – may have nearly snuffed out life on Earth 250 million years ago, two recent reports suggest.

Now, how was the USA responsible for this one?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
38957
Jan 21 2005, 04:18 PM
CBS News
Quote:
 
Global warming – not a cataclysmic collision with an asteroid – may have nearly snuffed out life on Earth 250 million years ago, two recent reports suggest.

Now, how was the USA responsible for this one?

Good question. That is what I was getting at, Global warming is natural.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
This is the text of the piece , and , you guessed it , it comes from the Fox Network.
Quote:
 
The U.N. is holding its second-ever "World Conference on Disaster Reduction" (search) this week in Kobe, Japan. Scheduled for the 10th anniversary of the deadly January 1995 earthquake in Kobe and following in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami (search), you might think that the conference’s focus would be “natural disasters.”

But the first indication that this isn’t necessarily the case comes when you compare the titles of the current and previous U.N. disaster conferences.

The title of the U.N.’s first disaster conference, held in 1994, was the “World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction,” which, incidentally, occurred during the U.N.-proclaimed "International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction" (1990-1999).

Natural disasters, as far as the U.N. is concerned anyway, apparently are no longer “natural.”

Behind the "1984"-like de-natural-ization of the disaster conference is, of course, the ongoing effort by the U.N. — a leading promoter of the unproven notion that humans are significantly altering global climate for the worse — to be able to blame people, as opposed to Nature, for deadly and costly occurrences such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves and the like.


And the particular people that the U.N. would most like to pin the blame for global warming (search) on would be deep-pocket Americans, American businesses and the American government. As the global warming alarmist community likes to point out, the U.S. is the largest single contributor to the alleged global warming, emitting 25 percent of all greenhouse gases (search) while possessing only 4 percent of the world’s population.

Toward the goal of blaming the U.S. for what used to be considered “natural disasters” in order to eventually extract financial compensation, the U.N. conference’s draft action plan is riddled with references to climate change [read, “U.S.-made climate change”] as causing or contributing to “disasters.”

The Bush administration rightly opposes the U.N.’s effort to de-naturalize disasters and has requested that the document’s references to climate change be removed. But U.N. officials oppose such changes.

“I hope there will be a global recognition of climate change causing more natural disasters,” said Jan Egeland, U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs.

Weather disasters like hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps, ice storms always have, and always will plague man. As far as we know, they are entirely natural occurrences. There is absolutely no credible evidence that humans — much less Americans in particular — have had have any discernible impact on the frequency and severity of — dare I say it? — natural disasters.

Given the media’s new habit of linking virtually any extreme or unusual weather with global warming, some scientists now even feel compelled to go out of their way to reaffirm that global warming isn’t causing natural disasters, as in the case of the string of hurricanes that hit south Florida last summer.

The U.N. dramatizes the need for its “action plan” by claiming that: economic damages resulting from “disasters” have increased from about 1,500 disasters costing $200 billion during the 1970s to 6,000 disasters costing $700 billion during the 1990s; and the number of people “threatened” by “disasters” has increased from about 750 million people in the 1970s to about 2.5 billion people in the 1990s.

I don’t know how accurate those estimates may be, but to the extent that natural disasters do wreak more economic havoc and threaten more people now than 30 years ago, that is most likely due to all the upscale development that has spread during that time to coastal regions and other areas more vulnerable to the whims of Mother Nature.

Participating in the U.N. conference is the German insurance company Munich Re (search), which issued a report “Megacities — Megarisks: Trends and challenges for insurance and risk management,” bemoaning the alleged impacts of global warming and other “disasters” on insurers.

Munich Re claims, for example, that the urban heat island effect — the modern-day phenomenon where cities are warmer than surrounding rural areas due to increased heat trapping by concrete and asphalt — amplifies the effect of global warming to increase the number of deaths caused by heatwaves.

Despite any intuitive appeal, this assertion is unfounded since there is no scientific evidence that global warming — which involves a hypothesized few-degree rise in global temperatures over the course of a century — has anything to do with summer heatwaves — which involve sudden dramatic, short-term shifts in local temperature.

Weather, after all, is not climate.

The end-game of the insurance industry, like that of the U.N. , is to be able to blame natural disasters on global warming so that it also can eventually seek compensation for its losses from U.S. businesses and taxpayers.

Insurers, apparently, are more than happy to accept premiums for writing risky policies, but not too happy when Mother Nature and policyholders force them to make good on claims.



I like the idea of
Quote:
 
The end-game of the insurance industry, like that of the U.N. , is to be able to blame natural disasters on global warming so that it also can eventually seek compensation for its losses from U.S. businesses and taxpayers.
, now that would be a treat , and maybe, just maybe , changes in how these business and the USA's government behave might come about. Nothing like raiding the bank account to get someone's attention. Hey, just market forces at work there.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Thank God there's atleast one news service that's willing to expose the truth.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Jan 22 2005, 01:38 AM
This is the text of the piece , and , you guessed it , it comes from the Fox Network.

So what? That's your automatic discount? You think the UN is NOT saying this.

Fox News, and other sources, reported on some lunacy at the UN. CV6 used this link. Would you have trusted the source more if it came from CNN or The Age?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Anybody else think that the UN is completly useless?

Yes, but I have no specifics. I did like the Jeopardy reference, however!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
somerled
Jan 22 2005, 01:38 AM
This is the text of the piece , and , you guessed it , it comes from the Fox Network.

I guess I'll just discount anything an Austrialian news network says then.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
CV6 Enterprise
Member Avatar
Captain
somerled
Jan 22 2005, 01:38 AM
I like the idea of
Quote:
 
The end-game of the insurance industry, like that of the U.N. , is to be able to blame natural disasters on global warming so that it also can eventually seek compensation for its losses from U.S. businesses and taxpayers.
, now that would be a treat , and maybe, just maybe , changes in how these business and the USA's government behave might come about. Nothing like raiding the bank account to get someone's attention. Hey, just market forces at work there.

The United States has some of the lowest emmisions per person than anyother country. Why don't you harp on Mexico, or parts of Asia or Aferica? They polute much worse than the United States per person. You anti-Americanism is blinding you agian.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
I think that Somerled was just joshing. He has been in a bit of a snit lately. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I am strongly convinced of the case that the world is warming usually quickly due to greenhouse gas emissions and one of the largest emitters in the USA. It is also the largest industrial country not to sign up to the first stage of combating those emissions; the kyoto protocol.

Part of global warming is extreme weather related and a lot of hazards are to do with human influence as much as they are natural events. The UN is right to drop the title natural and incorporate these events. Its not just global warming, for example flooding can be made significantly worse by urbanisation or a natural event that would have caused little problem could cause a landslide because of deforestation.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
You might change your opinion on global warming if you were about ten feet from where I am right now. :Fes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
CV6 Enterprise
Jan 22 2005, 09:11 PM
somerled
Jan 22 2005, 01:38 AM
I like the idea of
Quote:
 
The end-game of the insurance industry, like that of the U.N. , is to be able to blame natural disasters on global warming so that it also can eventually seek compensation for its losses from U.S. businesses and taxpayers.
, now that would be a treat , and maybe, just maybe , changes in how these business and the USA's government behave might come about. Nothing like raiding the bank account to get someone's attention. Hey, just market forces at work there.

The United States has some of the lowest emmisions per person than anyother country. Why don't you harp on Mexico, or parts of Asia or Aferica? They polute much worse than the United States per person. You anti-Americanism is blinding you agian.

I'm sorry but your plain wrong. The USA has some of the HIGHEST emmissions per person than any other country.

METRIC TONS OF CO2 PER CAPITA (2000)
[selected countries numbers refer to ranks in full table]
(Source: Secretariat of the UNFCCC, http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi...7&fID=my&cgID=)

1. Qatar - 70.1
2. Netherlands Antilles - 46.2
3. Bahrain - 28.8
4. Kuwait - 21.34
5. UAE - 20.9
6. Aruba - 20.6
7. USA - 20.6
10. Canada - 18.71
11. Australia - 18.21
25. Netherlands - 10.91
27. Israel - 10.5
28. Germany - 10.41
31 Japan - 9.81
33. UK - 9.31
39. New Zealand - 8.11
50. South Africa - 7.4
72. Mexico - 4.3
100. China - 2.2

Your anti-UN feelings are blinding you again. WHY does the USA need to emit twice as much CO2 per person as countries like the UK, Germany or Japan?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Fesarius
Jan 22 2005, 09:28 PM
^^^
You might change your opinion on global warming if you were about ten feet from where I am right now. :Fes:

Why?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus