Home > BRICS, Europe, India, Politics, World Economy > Another nail in climate change coffin – Pacific islands growing not shrinking

Another nail in climate change coffin – Pacific islands growing not shrinking


Better not drink this!

Better not drink this!

Five years ago Pacific islands became a tragic poster children of Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth. The BBC called the Maldives “a paradise faced with extinction”.

But just four of the 27 islands studied by the team – chosen because sea levels had risen in the past sixty years – had diminished in size. The other 23 had expanded, one by as much as 60 per cent.

The islands apparently expand their mass by accumulating sediment, and through natural processes – not surprisingly, since they’re built on live biomatter: coral. (via Pacific islands growing not shrinking, says old study • The Register).

The hoax of this century

2ndlook tracked and collated the entire climate change campaign, where

  1. Multiple PR agencies, NGOs were used and funded by the British, Norwegian and Australian Governments
  2. To mount a global campaign of ‘epic’ proportions
  3. To stampede the world into a regime of faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats -
  4. That would monitor nations, industry and economies of the world.

The campaign possibly even subverted the Maldives election campaign to propel a Trojan horse into the developing world camp. Nobel prizes were dangled in front of the Trinidad’s PM. A group of ‘Vulnerable 14′ was promoted to make proxy noises on behalf of the organizers of his climate change hoax. This latest expose comes as no surprise.

Not to 2ndlook, at least!

2ndlook on climate change

About these ads
  1. Fan of your blog
    June 12, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Climate change is not a matter of faith or belief. It is a fact. I am pained to see people make this into a west vs. east or us vs. them argument.

    The same applies to population. How can someone in their right minds say that growing population of this earth or of India is a good idea? Step outside your home and see for yourself what excessive population growth has done all around you.

  2. Galeo Rhinus
    June 14, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    Dear Fan of your blog –

    What a wonderful segue… climate change and population!

    In fact – a human being emits a massive amount of GHG’s into the atmosphere.

    Perhaps – the perfect solution – as people such as you might cheer – is to get rid of “unwanted humans” from this planet.

    Two birds in one stone!

  3. Fan of your blog
    June 15, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    How does that solution fit into the Indic ideologies? :)

    You seem to agree that we need to address climate change and population? Or do I sense some sarcasm in your post?

  4. Galeo Rhinus
    June 16, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Sarcasm? Moi? Of course not ;-)

    Suggesting genocide to “save” the planet?

    OF COURSE I am being sarcastic!

  5. Fan of your blog
    June 17, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    Genocide to address climate change was your idea, not mine.

    I was asking if you think climate change and population growth need to be addressed. I am not talking about means to address these issues. Or do you also hold the so called “Indic ideology” that population growth and climate change are conspiracies by western nations (read USA) to beat down and keep the developing countries?

  6. Galeo Rhinus
    June 22, 2010 at 12:07 am

    “Climate change” or “population explosion” are modern versions of the Malthusian panic.

    I mock all these “end of the world” fears with equal equanimity.

    These panics emerge out of the progressivsist linear paradigms that are unable to reconcile the gaps between the promise of a glorious future and the reality of the present that defies it.

    Indic ideology, on the other hand, has no such grand illusions about the future, nor does it view the present and past in a linear fashion.

    As long as you remain trapped within the paradox of this framework you will have difficulty understanding this argument.

  7. A Fan of Your Blog
    June 30, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Galeo Rhinus :<PIndic ideology, on the other hand, has no such grand illusions about the future, nor does it view the present and past in a linear fashion.

    Can you post some references to the above? It will help me with my learning greatly. Thanks!

  8. Galeo Rhinus
    June 30, 2010 at 6:09 am

    I am not sure what is the context of your question… knowing your background might help me answer your question more efficiently…

  9. A Fan of your blog
    July 6, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    Here is the context to my query: I hear references to a glorious Indic past very often. While I can relate to some of the riches of the times (knowledge, philosophy, wealth, etc.), others I question. When you talk about not having grand illusions about the future, etc. (as applicable to population and climate change), I would like to see some references to these assertions. I am ok with discarding these as “Malthusian” so long as I can see why makes you do that. While I say this, I do not want to nitpick one or two sentences in your reply and want to treat it as a whole. That too with a perspective to learn, more than anything else.

    As for my background, I am Indian living in America, much like yourself. Interested in anything and everything Indian.

  10. Galeo Rhinus
    July 7, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    You are actually quite right about some unreasonable claims to the Indic past. Knowledge, philosophy and individual wealth represented the core assets of a free India. There are several things ancient India could not have “achieved.” In fact – several “great” contributions even in Indic texts are attributed to asuras. Asuras were not a race, region or a republic – but a form of belief in a certain polity. There were times when asuras or rakshasas were relatives… times when they were distant… and times when they represented a political unit… There were several Asuras who were Indian (mayasura – the founder of Indic astronomy – surya siddhanta and vaastu-shastra – who was Ravana’s father-in-law, he was exiled after the defeat) and several who were not (possibly persian asuras who hired Shukracharya as their consultant/advisor). In several things – it had to be the asuras who achieved “great” things. I put “great” in quotes – because Indic polity would not view them as “great” but the “modern” world would. The point is that – in this context your basic premise is not flawed.

    About the future – Indic philosophy has no grand illusions about the future in general. Any references to the future, when the present looks bleak, is the restoration of balance. No claims that lion and sheep will be sitting next to each other or that the meek shall inherit the earth.

    About Malthusian panics – let’s flip this around. I know that Malthus was wrong then and he would be wrong even now… as he would be in the future. But, how about you attempt to prove malthus wrong – both in the 1700s and even now – about population growth and food supply. Make a convincing case that going forward there will be enough food for all of us and the growing population.

    If you can’t – then that makes you afraid of not only “climate” and “population” but also about “food.” You will have to concede the “end of the world” fear – is a irrational state of mind. I cannot alter that. If you can convince me that you don’t display this irrational fear – then I am willing to have a rational discussion with you about “climate change” and “population explosion.”

  11. July 9, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Completely awesome way to demolish this Malthusian /Climate /Population Theories. Never looked at it this way.

    Was the Demolition Man movie based on your character? :)

  12. A Fan of your blog
    July 10, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Galeo Rhinus :
    About Malthusian panics – let’s flip this around. I know that Malthus was wrong then and he would be wrong even now… as he would be in the future. But, how about you attempt to prove malthus wrong – both in the 1700s and even now – about population growth and food supply. Make a convincing case that going forward there will be enough food for all of us and the growing population.
    If you can’t – then that makes you afraid of not only “climate” and “population” but also about “food.” You will have to concede the “end of the world” fear – is a irrational state of mind. I cannot alter that. If you can convince me that you don’t display this irrational fear – then I am willing to have a rational discussion with you about “climate change” and “population explosion.”

    Ok. Malthus or his beliefs are not central to the argument here. To prove him right or wrong is not the point. Let’s also leave out the end of the world constructs. They are delusional at best. There are two main questions here:

    1. Is population growth (lets use rates in India as an example since we are closest to this example) good for the country? Again using India as an example, people argue that having more hands increases GDP output and helps Indian economy grow (this is Nilekani’s position as well). The fallacy is two fold: a. It does not increase GDP per capita, so standard of living of our people does not change dramatically. A larger population, by definition, will lead to a larger economy. What is so great about that? b. It puts more strain on our resources such as education, food and natural resouces. While one can argue that there is “enough” on this planet for everyone, and there is no “ideal” or “maximum” population that the planet can support, it definitely does not help in managing these resources optimally. An example to support this would be the fact that, as education levels in countries around the world have grown, the birth rates in those economies have dipped dramatically. People are able to make more rational economic decisions, such as planning for kids education and family needs, and economic output per capita has grown. This is the basic difference between developed and developing economies. While one can argue that developing economies are better off than developed ones due to the present economic crisis, the standard of living in these economies despite the downturn busts this fallacy. I am not suggesting that these economies are ideal and there is nothing wrong with them. As we all know, there are plenty things that are not optimal. But the basic differences in GDP per capita and hence the standard of living still hold.

    2. Question about climate change, at least in my mind, is not whether it will lead to the end of the world. It is whether at least some of the climate change is cuased by humans and if it is, then should we do anything to attempt to reverse it?

    I would like to know your views on both these questions, and why you think the way you do. Thanks very much.

  13. Galeo Rhinus
    July 12, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Population growth. In the 1800s India had 24 major famines (in the entire millennium before there were probably a dozen or so). Poverty was rampant and infant mortality was high. Malnutrition of the mother and the child were the main reasons. People overproduced – with the assumption than some children will die. Birth rates in 1910 were 6% and death rate was about 5%. Total population growth about 1% – everyone is happy (wouldn’t you be?). These figures roughly prevailed until the 50s and 60s. Even with marginal freedom, economic conditions improved. Death rates dropped from 5% to 2% – but the birth rates dropped only from 6% to 5% – that caused the “explosion” in the 50s and 60s and 70s – with the population growing at over 3%. After a generation, people recognized that overproducing children was not necessary (the government had little to do with this lesson – I assure you. Humans are rational – especially Indians – who do not trust their governments). Today the death rate is down to 0.8% (from 5% in 1910) and the birth rate is down to 2.4% or so. You should be happy (about the same as 1910) – yet you are not. Nothing to panic. Nothing to do. Nothing for “us” to do here – other than work towards completing the process of achieving total freedom – to stabilize the remaining instability.

    Climate change. The issue is not whether you and I can answer this question. Scientists are modern priests – who with their “aggregated” data – claim they know more than you and me. This asymmetry lends itself to a conflict. The real debate is meaningless when there is doubt about the integrity of the panic creators. The agenda is far to dangerous to be trapped in.

    I am not arguing against science. Because “climate change” is not science. It is politics and dogma – packaged as science.

    No difference in priests who abuse their “special connection to god” and “scientists” with special knowledge. You don’t need to be conspiracy nut to think rationally… and as long as there are irrational people who trust priests and scientists blindly – you shall be taken for a ride.

    Enjoy the ride my friend.

  14. A fan of your blog
    July 12, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    From your discourse on India’s population history, it seems that you agree that, for whatever reason, population growth in India was out of control and will now reacher saner levels. Correct me if I am wrong.

    About climate change, healthy skepticism is good. What you are doing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I am not sure I am ready to do that. My opinion is that anything we can do to reduce carbon and greenhouse emissions is a good thing and only help to make this a better place. If this is a scam, it is a scam of gigantic proportions. I would not sweep it under the carpet like you do.

  15. Galeo Rhinus
    July 13, 2010 at 6:38 am

    “out of control”???? where do I even remotely put a value judgment on the rising population. It is merely an explanation – nothing “good” or “bad” about it… people are people… I have no reason to “judge” their mere existence.

    I would agree with the idea reducing carbon… but I’d rather focus on monoxide that is poisoining Indians TODAY. It is nonsensical to kill hundreds of thousands of people because of pollution related diseases and yet commit ridiculous money for “saving” the earth. Let’s save people TODAY.

  16. A fan of your blog
    July 13, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Judging mere existence? I am talking from a system design perspective. In purely economic terms. No one is questioning anyone’s existence, nor am I talking about genocide here. The simple question was “Specifically in the Indian context, does having less people help the economy?” and you already answered yes to it, in your last post.

    However you would like to position this “debate” over pollution or global warming, it is man made and needs to be rectified. Whether it is now or in the future. Whether you look at it from a “global warming” construct or a “carbon monoxide poisoning” construct, it still need to be addressed as a man-made issue.

    Thanks for the debate. This is my last post on this topic.

  1. March 14, 2011 at 8:07 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,017 other followers

%d bloggers like this: