In response to John, I believe that the vested interests of the World Bank and other multi-national and national agencies are the single largest indicators of climate change (i.e., global warming). They have a vested interest in keeping their funding by promoting the notion that the world is still warming, when in fact it is now cooling.
If this is not a deliberate act by the Bank to continue creating climate hysteria, the only other explanation is that the Bank is so unaware of climate science that it doesn't realize that global warming stopped over fifteen years ago. Or will it soon belatedly discover the present cooling trend, and call that a climate problem?
Data from NASA and HadCRUT show that warming levelled off around 1997, and that there has been a gentle cooling trend since then. This is the same satellite data that the World Bank and other national/ international agencies accepted for the fifteen years prior to 1997 when data showed gentle global warming. These agencies needed only fifteen years of the same type of data to create climate hysteria. (For the record, similar data showing cooling trends before that was used by alarmists to cause climate hysteria in the 1970s.)
Further, over the past fifteen years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have continued to rise while the world is cooling. Therefore is the conclusion that rising CO2 levels cause global cooling? Or is the conclusion that all of the major climate models are completely wrong, and that climate science must admit that they don't know much about the drivers of climate change?
Either way, the Bank should stop wasting money, and stop following anti-carbon, anti-growth political agendas if it seriously wants to help countries in the region both grow economically and simultaneously tackle their real environmental issues.
In closing, there is no doubt that the climate is warming, in fits and starts, since the last ice age waned. But the issues the Bank desperately wants to ascribe to "climate change" are actually caused by erratic and unpredictable weather events, not global warming or global cooling. Further, to the region's poor, many of whom live from day-to-day, something that may (or may not) occur in the next hundred years or more is meaningless.
If the Bank is to help the poor peoples in the region deal realistically with issues of drought, flooding, severe weather, and air and water pollution, it must stop beating the dead horse of climate change. Scrap the junk science and bring true science into the picture.