05 November 2009

Dumbest Argument for Climate Action Ever?

I don't know why I have the question mark in the title. Check out this embarrassing argument for action reported in the Guardian:
"The world's poorest communities can't afford to wait. The cost of any delay to a climate deal will be counted in children's lives. We estimate that 250,000 children could be killed by climate change next year," said Benedict Dempsey, Save the Children's humanitarian policy officer.


  1. How philosophical it would be if climate change were independent of human activity yet its net result would be to essentially eliminate the human race entirely. Furthermore, given that hypothetical result, how meaningful to us would our scientific understanding of our demise be? Perhaps it is at that moment when our religion will be the last available recipient of our humility borne out of our understanding of our own insignificance.

  2. Could you decontruct this a bit more please? Why is Benedict Dempsy saying this? Is he pointing to some specific study? What is the basis?

    Also, what is the basis for your response? I don't see any supporting information either side.

  3. The argument you point to in your article is clearly based on opinion and not fact.

    However, the argument makes sense if one puts the argument in the context of Political Science and considering the concept “agenda”.

    Political Organizations such as The Tides Foundation and The Center for American Progress are attempting to push their agendas of global redistribution of wealth and income by using climate change as their vehicle to achieve their agenda. That is, Climate Change doesn’t mean Climate Change to these organizations. Sounds strange does it not? Sort of Orwellian?

    The links below are good places to start if you would like to research the above:



  4. Hmmm. How will a change in climate kill these kids? How will reaching a climate deal effectively stop the climate from the feared change next year in order to save their lives?

    I'd pay for popcorn and a drink to watch a skilled lawyer conduct that cross-examination.

  5. Went to the full article to read more. There isn't! This is really shabby journalism.