Beast of Burden
Its this simple. Without radical transformation in the next decade we will see environmental collapse within the next 15-20 years followed by societal collapse. Business as usual will lead to an almost uninhabitable planet by 2100.
Australia is a good place to start actually, not just because of their very visible and very disadvantaged indigenous communities but also because they're a particularly bad offender for GHG emissions - eighth-worst in the world a few years ago (in per-person terms).A group of indigenous people from low-lying islands off the coast of Australia on Monday lodged an unprecedented complaint against the country's government, accusing it of insufficient action on climate change.
The eight Torres Strait Islanders filed the complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, claiming that rising sea levels were having a devastating effect on their communities.
Around 4,500 people live on the Torres Strait Islands, a group of more than 270 islands lying between the north coast of Australia and Papua New Guinea. The complainants say their homes, burial grounds and cultural sites could disappear underwater in their lifetimes.
Australia's failure to adequately address the problem was a breach of its human rights obligations to the islanders, they allege.
Yes it's nonsense, when you go down to the references... tumbleweed and crickets!Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.
Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.
Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.
This document is not a proper scientific paper and would not pass peer review in an academic journal. The crucial data sources (e.g. of the dataset claimed to be low cloud cover) are not provided, and the figure purporting to show changes in cloud cover is at odds with peer-reviewed papers like Eastman et al1. That published scientific paper does not show the decline in low cloud cover claimed in this document.