Papua New Guinea Stands Up to the U.S.

[juancarlos]

At the Climate Change Conference in Bali, the U.S. rejects the compromise agreement. Then, PNG delegate rebukes the U.S. to "either lead or get out of the way". The U.S. eventually accepts the compromise agreement.

www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/15/bali.agreement/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

A light weight kid has stood up to the school yard bully and won. Ha!

[haplotype]

You mean PNG's economy is not based on handouts from rich nations, exporting tropical wood and minerals? If PNG has the courage to admit that it really wants more handouts, as opposed to acting like any other small country with its cheap posturing, then I would be more impressed. ;D

[haplotype]

Oh look, here's the real reason the PNG "stood up" to the US -- because it is owned by China.

new.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=10427

[juancarlos]

Haplotype,

Your article also accuses Asians of bringing HIV to PNG. That by itself discredits the entire article.

As far as Papua New Guinea itself, as an island nation it is one of the countries that has the most to lose when the sea levels rise because of Global Warming. I can say the same thing about Indonesia, Philippines, Maldives and other island nations that are almost at sea level. That is why PNG wanted to have some resolution and consensus at this Conference.

JC

[haplotype]

juancarlos said:

Haplotype,
Your article also accuses Asians of bringing HIV to PNG. That by itself discredits the entire article.

The article accurately describes the mentality of small backward countries, to blame all their problems on outsiders.

As far as Papua New Guinea itself, as an island nation it is one of the countries that has the most to lose when the sea levels rise because of Global Warming.

You mean PNG is not a very mountainous country? You might want to check your geography. It would seem the US has more to lose with New York, Miami, and Washington DC going underwater -- assuming that sea levels rise, anyway.

I can say the same thing about Indonesia, Philippines, Maldives and other island nations that are almost at sea level. That is why PNG wanted to have some resolution and consensus at this Conference.

i.e. when they have their Hurricane Katrinas, they want white people to hand out welfare checks, since their Chinese masters won't.

[Mr Brad Pitt]

Yeah PNG's economy relies heavily on natural and rich nations resources.
It doesn't imply they have to remain politically irresponsible.

And sea level rise is a reality.

About Haplotype's article.
The article accurately describes sh.i.t. It is supposed to emanate from a news agency; like AFP, AP or Reuters. But the overall tone plus the AIDS thing is everything but journalism. Activism, maybe.
Even if it was proven to be fully true, who's to blame? There's no government, no police, no fiscal control in this country to empeach fraud? What a joke.

[cm]

Well of course they are. They wouldn't have to cut any emissions, and would be the beneficiary of a carbon tax. I'd say it would be irresponsible for them if they didn't.

[juancarlos]

haplotype said:

juancarlos said:

Haplotype,
Your article also accuses Asians of bringing HIV to PNG. That by itself discredits the entire article.

The article accurately describes the mentality of small backward countries, to blame all their problems on outsiders.



You mean PNG is not a very mountainous country? You might want to check your geography. It would seem the US has more to lose with New York, Miami, and Washington DC going underwater -- assuming that sea levels rise, anyway.

I can say the same thing about Indonesia, Philippines, Maldives and other island nations that are almost at sea level. That is why PNG wanted to have some resolution and consensus at this Conference.

i.e. when they have their Hurricane Katrinas, they want white people to hand out welfare checks, since their Chinese masters won't.

You don't believe that sea levels are indeed rising? You wanna wait until your sweet home Alabama disappears under the Atlantic Ocean?

PNG indeed has several inhabited islands. And those would disappear. That's what I was talking about.

Regardless of PNG's motivation, I am very glad that they compelled the U.S. to act.

[juancarlos]

seejayeff said:

Well of course they are. They wouldn't have to cut any emissions, and would be the beneficiary of a carbon tax. I'd say it would be irresponsible for them if they didn't.

Well, there isn't much for PNG to cut anyways. It's the West, China and India that are the major contributors to green house gases on an absolute basis.

[haplotype]

juancarlos said:

You don't believe that sea levels are indeed rising?

We haven't been collecting data long enough to say that it really is rising, as opposed to being part of a cyclical pattern. If it is rising, we do not know if it is part of an ocean salinity cycle, fluctuations in the sun's output, or fluctuations in the Earth's orbit. And there is solid evidence to support all three theories. Throughout history, whenever natural disasters struck, there has been a human reflex to blame themselves. Who should we blame for undersea earthquakes setting off tsunamis and killing hundreds of thousands of people?

You wanna wait until your sweet home Alabama disappears under the Atlantic Ocean?

That will be hard, since we are at 500 feet elevation and we are hundreds of miles from the sea.

Considering how much undeveloped interior land is available in throughout the world, even on islands, I don't see what the problem is.

PNG indeed has several inhabited islands. And those would disappear. That's what I was talking about.

You mean they wouldn't have disappeared anyway from tsunamis, typhoons, or natives exhausting the resources?

Regardless of PNG's motivation, I am very glad that they compelled the U.S. to act.

So we can live in a world where Westerners punish themselves for imaginary effects, while countries like China, Russia, India, or Saudi Arabia can burn all the fuel they please.

[juancarlos]

Haplotype,

The earth's temperature has been consistently rising for the past century. Is that not definitive enough for you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

What do you mean that the world has enough undeveloped interior land? Were you talking about the Sahara Desert? The U.S. perhaps has substantial undeveloped land, but not the rest of the world. And in the scenario that say heavily populated island countries in the equator disappear because of rising seas, will you allow their millions of refugees to settle in the "undeveloped" U.S. interior, including Alabama?

How can typhoons or natives exhausting resources cause inhabited islands to disappear?

With regard to your last statement, if other countries of the world choose not to do anything, does that mean we shouldn't also? That's what happened in Rwanda's genocide. The world, including the U.S., chose to do nothing.

JC

[haplotype]

juancarlos said:

Haplotype,

The earth's temperature has been consistently rising for the past century. Is that not definitive enough for you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Exactly what I mean. The graph is very wobbly, with cycles and epicycles. Historical records also describe mini-ice ages that did occur from the 16th through 19th century. The graph only shows temperatures since the second half of the 19th century. Why are we supposed to extrapolate that temperatures will rise forever?

What do you mean that the world has enough undeveloped interior land? Were you talking about the Sahara Desert? The U.S. perhaps has substantial undeveloped land, but not the rest of the world.

Siberia, Northern Canada, Antarctica, Greenland, are all wastelands covered in ice. Why are we supposed to preserve these ice-covered wastelands? Will a warmer world support more life on half the Earth's land mass that is currently ice cap or tundra?

Even without considering tundra, most countries have plenty of undeveloped interior land. Japan, China, Vietnam, Mexico, etc. etc. all have large expanses of interior land where very few people live.

And in the scenario that say heavily populated island countries in the equator disappear because of rising seas, will you allow their millions of refugees to settle in the "undeveloped" U.S. interior, including Alabama?

You mean tsunamis or typhoons won't wipe them out first? I haven't heard anyone demanding that millions of Sri Lankans be allowed to settle in other countries just because of the tsunami.

Incidentally, Sri Lankans have spent decades begging the US to send troops to Sri Lanka. But we know how the world will react if the US does.

How can typhoons or natives exhausting resources cause inhabited islands to disappear?

Typhoon makes island disappear: www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/09/wake_island_dis.html

Exhausting resources cause natives to disappear: ask Easter Island.

Natives shave off island, turning it into flat wasteland that could disappear anyday in a storm:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru#Economy

With regard to your last statement, if other countries of the world choose not to do anything, does that mean we shouldn't also? That's what happened in Rwanda's genocide. The world, including the U.S., chose to do nothing.

History has consistently shown that when the US intervenes, the world becomes more opposed to US "meddling". Western media claimed that Serbs were setting up holocaust camps with barbed wire fences (which were a lie, by the way.) Europeans spent years begging us to drop bombs on Serbs. When we did, Europeans became furious at "US imperialists dropping bombs on Europeans", and the effects are still felt today. If the US intervenes in the Middle East to stop brutal dictators, then it is a "war for oil". If the US had intervened in Africa, then suddenly all of Africa's problems are "America's fault", and the "real reason" was for diamonds.

[juancarlos]

haplotype said:

juancarlos said:

Haplotype,

The earth's temperature has been consistently rising for the past century. Is that not definitive enough for you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Exactly what I mean. The graph is very wobbly, with cycles and epicycles. Historical records also describe mini-ice ages that did occur from the 16th through 19th century. The graph only shows temperatures since the second half of the 19th century. Why are we supposed to extrapolate that temperatures will rise forever?



Siberia, Northern Canada, Antarctica, Greenland, are all wastelands covered in ice. Why are we supposed to preserve these ice-covered wastelands? Will a warmer world support more life on half the Earth's land mass that is currently ice cap or tundra?

Even without considering tundra, most countries have plenty of undeveloped interior land. Japan, China, Vietnam, Mexico, etc. etc. all have large expanses of interior land where very few people live.



You mean tsunamis or typhoons won't wipe them out first? I haven't heard anyone demanding that millions of Sri Lankans be allowed to settle in other countries just because of the tsunami.

Incidentally, Sri Lankans have spent decades begging the US to send troops to Sri Lanka. But we know how the world will react if the US does.



Typhoon makes island disappear: www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/09/wake_island_dis.html

Exhausting resources cause natives to disappear: ask Easter Island.

Natives shave off island, turning it into flat wasteland that could disappear anyday in a storm:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru#Economy

With regard to your last statement, if other countries of the world choose not to do anything, does that mean we shouldn't also? That's what happened in Rwanda's genocide. The world, including the U.S., chose to do nothing.

History has consistently shown that when the US intervenes, the world becomes more opposed to US "meddling". Western media claimed that Serbs were setting up holocaust camps with barbed wire fences (which were a lie, by the way.) Europeans spent years begging us to drop bombs on Serbs. When we did, Europeans became furious at "US imperialists dropping bombs on Europeans", and the effects are still felt today. If the US intervenes in the Middle East to stop brutal dictators, then it is a "war for oil". If the US had intervened in Africa, then suddenly all of Africa's problems are "America's fault", and the "real reason" was for diamonds.

What proof do you need to convince you that Global Warming is a reality and that the sea levels are now rising because of it?

You seem to be confusing temporary flooding/inundation of an island vs permanent disappearance due to rising sea levels. Wake Island had flooding during that Super Typhoon, but it did not disappear from the face of the earth, did it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_Island#Environment

Give me proof of an inhabited island that permanently disappeared because of a typhoon as you claimed. I mean if this is a fact of life, you shouldn't have a hard time giving me a list of those islands.

Easter Island still exists despite the fact that its natural resources have been depleted, no? Again, give me proof of an inhabited island that permanently disappeared because of natural resource depletion as you claimed. I mean if this is a fact of life, you shouldn't have a hard time giving me a list of those islands.

With regard to Sri Lanka, the whole island did not disappear from the face of the earth because of the tsunami, right? In fact, only a section of the island was devastated by it, so there is no reason for them to request evacuation to your sweet home Alabama. But if rising sea levels will cause Sri Lanka to permanently go underwater, will you be willing to accept your new Sri Lankan neighbors?

Japan has a large uninhabited interior? Do you really know Japan's geography? This is what's written about it ...

About 70% to 80% of the country is forested, mountainous,[35][36] and unsuitable for agricultural, industrial, or residential use. This is because of the generally steep elevations, climate and risk of landslides caused by earthquakes, soft ground and heavy rain.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan#Geography_and_climate

China has plenty of interior land, if you count the Gobi Desert.

With regard to U.S. intervention, Global Warming is both an international and a domestic problem. Are you suggesting that we should not act on our domestic problems? Even if we shut ourselves in and isolate internationally, Global Warming will come knocking on our shores.

With regard to the bombing of the Serbs, did majority of Europeans oppose U.S. intervention in that regard? Give me your proof.

[haplotype]

juancarlos said:

What proof do you need to convince you that Global Warming is a reality and that the sea levels are now rising because of it?

You have presented no evidence that temperatures or sea levels will continue to rise indefinitely. Considering that scientists of the 1970s were absolutely sure that a new ice age is imminent, human predictions of the future seem to change faster than the climate itself.

You seem to be confusing temporary flooding/inundation of an island vs permanent disappearance due to rising sea levels.

My original assertion was that typhoons or tsunamis can flood an island and wipe out all its inhabitants. There may or may not be islands that disappeared permanently as a result, I'll leave that for you as a hobby project.

With regard to Sri Lanka, the whole island did not disappear from the face of the earth because of the tsunami, right? In fact, only a section of the island was devastated by it, so there is no reason for them to request evacuation to your sweet home Alabama. But if rising sea levels will cause Sri Lanka to permanently go underwater, will you be willing to accept your new Sri Lankan neighbors?

Really? Is the sea level going to rise 2527 meters to cover Sri Lanka's Mt. Pidurutalagal, so that it will go "permanently underwater"? You seem to live in a rather fantastical world.

Japan has a large uninhabited interior? Do you really know Japan's geography? This is what's written about it ...

About 70% to 80% of the country is forested, mountainous,[35][36] and unsuitable for agricultural, industrial, or residential use. This is because of the generally steep elevations, climate and risk of landslides caused by earthquakes, soft ground and heavy rain.

In other words, it has a large uninhabited interior.

China has plenty of interior land, if you count the Gobi Desert.

But if the sea level is going to rise thousands of meters as you claim, will it still be a desert?

With regard to U.S. intervention, Global Warming is both an international and a domestic problem. Are you suggesting that we should not act on our domestic problems? Even if we shut ourselves in and isolate internationally, Global Warming will come knocking on our shores.

Since Hurricane Katrina, climatologists have repeatedly predicted that several Katrinas will strike the US every year. They have been repeatedly wrong. Should we take global action against alien invasions too?

With regard to the bombing of the Serbs, did majority of Europeans oppose U.S. intervention in that regard? Give me your proof.

I'll leave that for you to research, whatever your opinion is.

[juancarlos]

My point about Sri Lanka is that it has millions of people who will be displaced if the sea levels rise significantly. Where are those millions of people gonna go, but of course sweet home Alabama?

With regard to Japan, let me define words for you, as you seem to again be having confusion:

uninhabited: no human living there
uninhabitable: no human can possibly live there. For example, the area around an active volcano is uninhabitable. Japan has lots of uninhabitable interior space. Would you consider living on the edge of an active volcano?