With any actual respect for those bereaved, there would not be any attempt to platform such rhetoric FROM 'Greenpeace'. Of course the fairly common mudslide is still only the common mudslide, not 'doom caused by climate change'.

Certainly logging will not help, but then the swelling population is putting MORE PEOPLE into places where they have NOT been previously, HENCE the logging.

As such, it is analogous to the situation regarding transport, the more movements you have, the more accidents you can expect.

If of course 'Greenpeace' was presenting a RATIONAL outlook of events, this would have been realised. There is a problem, it is just NOT involving any supposed 'greenhouse effect'. See link http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 . There were attempts to blame CO2 for the Tsunami, is every accident to be now due to 'climate change'?

The credibility of these 'environmental organisation' is gone, they are simply (perhaps unintentionally also) the propaganda arm of a small organisation whose members are almost totally dependant now on the continuation of styled public 'acceptance' of the 'greenhouse concepts' and apprehension of the platformed 'doom and gloom'.

This is as the 'greenhouse science' is so obviously flawed; it is being hidden behind a façade of platformed 'consensus'. It seems that indoctrination of belief in a concept, as is tried in relation to 'greenhouse warming' concepts, produces irrational behaviors, with unreasonable aggression in those who consider the 'belief' to be threatened. But little real justification for their belief or any comprehension of the realities beneath the situations our society presents.

There is nothing but a few thousand individuals (does not the UCS have ~ 100,000 members?) presented as 'a consensus of scientists' but all these 'individuals' give is opinion. Scrutiny of that opinion is presented as 'unscrupulous activity'. Perhaps life has until now been too 'easy' for 'climatologists'.

Oil is no only used for fuel, apart from eating it, Humanity has become near totally reliant on 'fossil' derivatives for everything from hosiery to carpet, cloths to cars, and furniture to homes. Look for the word 'synthetic' and begin to realise.

Realise also that the passenger vehicle is a minority fuel user. The combustion of gasoline/petroleum is the minority process. The internal combustion of petroleum is NOT in any manner a majority process. The development of bio-fuel oil mix with fossil fuel oil will drive combustion to compression based designs such as that of "Diesel" based engines, and Turbines, as used in everything from Electricity generation, shipping, with extension into trains and trucks and even into passenger vehicles. Less fuel combusted for more power generation will see reduced emissions.

The situation is that ALL the other products derived from fossil oils will STILL be needed, so the diffraction of fossil oils WILL continue, and so there WILL be fossil oil based fuel products, but maybe not in the same volume, which will be supplemented with bio-fuel oil volume and be combustible in present technology engine designs near immediately often with little alteration.

As to the supposed 'climate change' link, to quote from a link I have given often enough:-

["Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time. Instead, they are concentrated into four time intervals."]

["During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreats occurred. For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years."]

["If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today."]

***["Our modern climate represents a very short,]***
***[ warm period between glacial advances."] ***

The seas have never risen in a uniform manner, and have been in an overall 'rise' for thousands of years. So the seas will rise by '40 cm' (~15.5 inches) in 100 years, is 'beach erosion' by this process at all relevant? No it is not. You can document sea level alterations in a more direct manner by looking at now submerged 'permanent human infrastructure'. This is predominately in the Mediterranean region and covers the last 5000 years.

First, consider the extract from an outline of the 'greenhouse effect':-
-----
[" CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat (outgoing infrared radiation). (Incoming sun rays are in the ultraviolet spectrum.) Without this layer of insulation, the "natural greenhouse effect', temperatures on Earth would be about -17degree Celsius. Thus, increased CO2 in the inner atmosphere (or troposphere, ~6 miles up) is exaggerating the natural greenhouse effect and increasing heat trapped in the troposphere."]
-----
-: then realise that
(1) The first mistake in the 'greenhouse concepts' is that 'HEAT' (the measure of the average KINETIC ENERGY of the atoms molecules of the sample' cannot be trapped, it cannot escape to the Vacuum of space to begin with once it is generated.
This is WHY the 'quoted version' of the 'greenhouse effect' has mentioned that: - ["Over the past several decades the troposphere has actually swollen by several hundred feet due to the warming and thermal expansion of the air."]
-: as the PRESSURE (related to the average KINETIC VELOCITY of the molecules/atoms of the sample) is increasing. Realise that the only constraint OF the atmosphere is GRAVITY.

(2) This is NOT insulation, "Heat", measured on a scale as a 'temperature', is the average kinetic energy of the molecules/atoms of the sample, and is unable to leave the biosphere to open space. The KINETIC VELOCITY of the molecules/atoms comprising the atmosphere is the expression of the KINETIC ENERGY they possess. This can only leave the atmosphere if the MOLECULES/ATOMS actually LEAVE.
The mistake with 'greenhouse science' is to link with attempts to present PHOTONIC REEMITTENCE by these molecules as 'blackbody radiation' then infer a 'temperature' from the 'readings'. However, the energy reemitted as Secondary Photons after interaction of a molecule and incident Photon is infact the realisation of the energy involved in AND released by the interaction as NOT being 'converted to heat', that is increasing the kinetic velocity of the molecule.

At this point the 'greenhouse theory' is immediately **REVERSING** the known SCIENCE of the situation, and this WAS known in the THREE FAILED attempts in the 20th Century to have validated the 'greenhouse concepts'. It should have been very clear at least after the THIRD FAILURE. As such, satellites are NOT taking a temperature reading of the atmosphere OR the surface, these 'measurements' are of RADIATION and the Photons OF this radiation that are escaping the Photonic cascade, representing energy that was NOT converted to kinetic energy, and cannot be VALIDLY regarded as a providing a 'measure of temperature'.

Also note figure 1vs.jpg again in:- http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
-: and note WHY only energy in the lower third of the UV Spectrum, and also the upper and lower Visible spectrum (consumed by Photosynthesis) becomes surface incident. Note also the H2O is constrained below its ice and condensation altitudes by GRAVITY.

There is a problem, it is just NOT involving any supposed 'greenhouse effect'.
See link http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312

Lastly, there are still some trying to infer, as has been 'tried on' in the recent past, to allude that perhaps I suffer from "Cognitive Dissonance" as I simply do not 'believe', and also raise points the 'few' find impossible to counter with their 'science'.

As the basis of the formation of Cognitive Dissonance in any population, the initial step is to produce 'experts', 'talking heads' whose 'fame' is more by constant mention than ability or deed. These 'experts' produce scenarios of 'danger, doom and woe' if their words are not heeded.

You see the style and platform of imposing nomenclature, names for 'processes' that are 'specialised', used within the 'special area' of knowledge known to the 'experts, in a manner of 'seeming' to be scientific', but are only covering contents of little validatable 'science'. That is why only the 'experts' are platformed to be the ONLY Ones to listen to. Such a label seen about is "Polar Amplification". The attempt is to try to produce an attitude of a 'closed shop' and only the OPINIONS of these few are platformed as 'relevant'. This returns to the 'history' trailing behind the 'greenhouse concepts', its failures within the arena of SCIENCE and motion into the arena of Politics.

Another example is the production of 'Anti Communist' sentiments, which where garnered in the 1950s USA, with the institutionalisation of processes to combat 'dangerous communism and its practitioners'. The internet is good at allowing such activity, hence the number of inconspicuously censored sites where 'unwanted' comment is removed, accompanied by ridicule of the author, as the censorship cannot be justified simply by quotation of the 'belief' system platformed.

The 'thousands of scientists' are only a 'drop in the bucket' of the ~500 MILLION tertiary degree (or equivalent) holders alive in the word today, and there is NO 'closed shop' in this matter, the materials involved are common and the knowledge is near 'common' level.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Member of the Public, Australia.
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com