This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Bjorn Lomberg has made a very god evaluation of this problem in which he proposes that if we only have a limited amount of resource, which problems should we tackle.
The list his group came up with has AID prevention at the top and climate change at the bottom.
A result mirrored by others who were asked to create their own list.
The point? for the same money the greatest good for the greatest number is not in addressing climate change which comes at the bottom of the list, even if true.
It makes you wonder what all those people are doing jetting off to Copenhagen, are they addressing AIDs prevention? Malaria controls? Starvation and disease? Are they intent on creating this world government to tackle AIDS?
It is all about the item bottom on everyone's list, climate change.
But now there is serious doubt that global warming is man made, is a runaway effect and not the fantasy of the UEA "value added" data? and what are they doing? they're going ahead anyway.
So maybe climate change is an excuse, something that can frighten rich guilty people because this is one thing that can happen to them too and besides, there is all that faux guilt to play on. Could it be that this new world order is the real objective and climate change the excuse?
What sort of future do we have awaiting us?
Any one who remembers Ted Heath taking the UK into the Common Market will know that this is a path to a totalitarian state. Small beginnings, large end game.
These crazes come and go. Psychoanalysis, eugenics, dialectical materialism, spiritualism, economics and now 'climate science' have all strutted their hour upon the world stage, attracting adulation from their fans. They make the crossover into mainstream culture and eventually even the artists and writers catch up with them. In due course they fall from favour, but only after a great deal of time, energy and money has been wasted - and, in some cases, very many human lives.
When human beings have explored every possible falsehood they will reluctantly turn to the truth, dull though it may be.
The numbers are indeed shocking to those who appreciate that things could be different. However there are many who seem to think (if they do think about it) that much greater death rates are required if humanity is to reduce numbers by enough to 'save' the planet - i.e. itself.
Also humanity is not very good at understanding and applying solutions to such problems.
for example one of the East African countries - I can't recall if it was Sudan or Somalia that was written about - despite regular droughts, wars and famine, has recently dramatically increased it population. Presumably they have discovered how to cut infant mortality and extend life expectancy. (Or maybe its a matter of refugees, but why seek refuge on that scale in a war zone?) Remarkable that they should even want to do either given the living conditions.
Here for more info and follow the link at the bottom of the page to a more complete numeric analysis.