International law is unfit to deal with the millions of people expected to flee their home countries to escape droughts and floods intensified by climate change, a group of lawyers said on Thursday.
Under existing laws, host countries must protect and care for cross-border refugees, who are defined as those forced to migrate because of violence or political, racial or religious persecution.
There are no such provisions for so-called climate refugees. Yet by 2050, between 200 million and 1 billion people could be forced to leave their homes because of global warming, said the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development, which advises vulnerable countries and communities.
[…]
What most experts agree on is that rising temperatures will leave an additional 200 million to 600 million people hungry by 2080 and cause critical water shortages in China and Australia, as well as in parts of Europe and the United States, according to a 2007 global climate report.Coastal flooding will also hit another 7 million homes.
#30 – amodedoma,
Broken link. Please try again.
Lets see… Quotes from Wikipedia… Right. They are the most left leaned and left edited wiki on the internet. None too believable for anything that is political or politicized…
OK… NASA. Oh YA!!! They were caught fudging the numbers a few years ago and when the Canadian that figured it out was trying to raise the alarm, NASA tried to silence him by blocking access to the raw data that showed that the the temperature data was over the mark from 2000 to current by nearly 50% of the supposed increase in temperature!!! So, NASA is out for being trustable.
The most dependable data out there is from the satellites that have been recording temps since the end of the 1970s and they show that there is almost no overall increase from 1979 to current.
Also, the last cooling period was caused mostly by a drop in solar output and extended by Krakatoa.
And before the last cooling period was the MASSIVELY warm Medieval Warm Period that was not a threat to anyone. And before that there was an even warmer stretch back in ancient times. Also no disasters.
And the ice a the North Pole is growing again and the polar bears are not dying off so that is not going to help the doom and gloom tree huggers one little bit…
That’s all Bullshit, they’re not refugees, they’re nuthin’ but spics, chinks, ni****s who want to invade America and steal jobs, education and health care from the good ole American citizens.
Phew! I had no idea that impersonating Rush Limbaugh was so tough. No wonder he takes that many painkillers.
# 16 Misanthropic Scott said,
“#1,2,3,
Well, if three anonymous asshole bloggers say it, why should I believe thousands of climatologists?”
Nice that you lumped me in about climate when all I said was that it is more bullshit from the UN. Maybe I can clear it up for you MS, I don’t believe a fucking thing the UN says or reports and I make sure that no charity I donate to gives them a dime of my money.
As for recorded temperatures, are we talking about all those readings coming from asphalt parking lots and ice measurements from on top of moving ice flows? What a bunch of ‘tards.
#36 – Jason,
Better keep that tin foil hat on.
#38 – Diesel,
Thanks for clearing up that I lumped you in the correct group.
I don’t mind the asshat blogger comment it’s the rest I had a problem with.
Millions of refugees wandering the countryside looking for someone to eat. Buwhahahahaha.
I always love a good laugh – very therapeutic.
Getting serious: just for the sake of argument, suspend all rationality and assume Man is causing warming. Just one time it would be refreshing to see someone propose a solution that isn’t worse than the problem.
This shit is funny…
Liberals are the dumbest mother-fuckers in the world.
#42 Toxic Asshead
‘see someone propose a solution that isn’t worse than the problem’
How about this – try using less of the earths resources by being more efficient.
Using less oil makes us more secure.
Doing so makes us as a country more efficient and therefore more competitive with the world.
We can be more efficient in transport, lighting (florescent, led etc), heating (thermal solar, geo), cooling (heat pumps, geo pumps), cleaning (heat pump dryers, modern washing machines).
Often the more efficient tech is more reliable and produces better results – such as active led/lcd tvs produce far better picture and use alot less energy.
Building things that last as opposed to disposable.
It’s not exactly radical stuff. In doing so we (as in the country) win irrespective of climate change.
Seems like a lot of posters don’t think climate change exists. It would be interesting to enumerate the reasons. Irrespective the only reasons that are significant are rational arguments based on real data.
You can find such material either way, but theres far more, complete and well researched material to suggest that there is climate change and a significant proportion in man made.
There is also a much larger collection of respected scientists, and researchers that reach the same conclusion – that is there is climate change and a significant proportion of it that is man made.
There it is. So if you deny that – then you’re in the realms of exceptional claims need exceptional evidence. So if you have said evidence then please post it.
On this particular report – who knows, its a finger in the air to an extent.
You could break it down
1) Is there climate change?
2) Is a significant proportion of recent (last 100 years) caused by humans?
3) Can we do something about it?
4) If we can should we do something about it?
From my perspective…
1 – is a fact. An iron clad guaranteed fact. If you deny this, then you are using the same critical thinking as the ‘Jesus had a pet dinosaur’ camp.
2 – whilst not in the same position as 1, it is heading more and more towards being an iron clad fact. That said whilst unlikely it could be overthrown yet. Climate is a complicated thing.
3 – less well known. Some ideas – as Toxic Asshead points out, are arguably more pain than the potential illness. Being more efficient though is not, and would benefit the country in many ways.
4 – Being more efficient it’s all benefit. It costs us less in the long term, it decreases pollution, helps our security – irrespective of climate change. If climate change is a serious issue (I believe it is) then it is also a good first step.
I’d be curious to know concretely from the people that don’t think its a problem, where they stand on those issues. Knowing clearly where they stand would clarify where ‘doing nothing’ is a good idea.
47, All you had to say was that you believe we all just need to live in caves. 🙂
FYI, Global Warming caused by humans is not becoming an “iron-clad fact”. It’s a theory that has yet to be proven.
But I agree with you that climate is a complicated thing. I’d wager that modeling our country’s stock market is in orders of magnitude simpler than modeling our climate. BTW, Computer simulations did a poor job of predicting the economy going down the tubes. I see no reason to believe computer simulations based on the assumption that CO2 drives all of this is any more accurate.
#49 Guyver
‘FYI, Global Warming caused by humans is not becoming an “iron-clad fact”. It’s a theory that has yet to be proven.’
All of science is a theory, yet to be dis proven. So that’s not saying much.
I say it’s heading in the direction of becoming an ‘iron clad fact’ as more research is done, the majority of it supports that idea.
That’s not to say some radical evidence could be produced that squashes that. But right now that’s the direction.
On computer simulations – theres definately issues. I’d say the stock market is _way_ more complex than a climate simulation. Way more variables, some unmeasurable, unseeable (a person could have an idea that can destroy an industry for example). And with computer simulations you can back test easily. I certainly wouldn’t throw them out of hand. That said they are an extrapolation.
50, I beg to differ. You’re already drawing conclusions before you know if your theory is valid. Heck, you’re already saying it’s going to be an iron-clad fact, so we can skip with whether or not you even had a hypothesis. That’s not science. And although you may be believe that theoretical science is “all science”, there is another field called applied science which does use many laws.
I’ll also have to disagree with a man-made system being more complex than nature. At least with a man-made system, we should know all the inputs.
The inputs to simulated climate models are based on assumptions that all inputs have been accounted for, that the inputs are modeled correctly in their magnitude of influence, and that CO2 drives the climate.
The simulations are self-serving based on making some logical leaps before some of your soon-to-be iron-clad facts are proven. Again that’s not science.
Is man-made global warming possible? Sure. ANYTHING is possible when you’re dealing with theories. Has it been proven? Nope. That’s an iron-clad fact.
#43 – Toxic Asshead,
Just one time it would be refreshing to see someone propose a solution that isn’t worse than the problem.
New Cantwell climate bill is simpler and more equitable
Cantwell’s Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act of 2009
Done. It’ll never pass because of all the toxic assheads of the world, but there it is. A suggestion better than the alternative of a P/T level extinction event.
#48 – Alfred1,
Proving once again that you don’t know how to read a graph and spot a trend, thanks. Yes, there may be some plateaus and even dips along the way. However, do you see a trend in the overall graph? No. I guess you don’t. Oh well. When it hits you over the head it will be too late. Perhaps it already is.
#51 – Alfie,
Would you care to back up the claim that oil is biodegradable? Over what time period? Please post a credible link.
Thanks.
#52 Guyver
Well it is a theory thats a fact. You can argue which direction its heading. Over time more evidence supports the theory. Therefore it’s heading towards fact. Right? Therefore you are disagreeing on the direction? If thats the case I understand, but disagree.
On computer models/simulations I can say firmly that you are wrong. Why?
For a climate model I have clear measurable inputs. Temperature. Humidity. Wind speed and direction. Pressure. Light from sun etc. Gas break down etc. I can use satellites. I can fly planes through clouds and end up balloons. I can do this all over the Earth.
I also have formulas which are provable from first principals that describe just these scenarios. Such as light, heat flow, fluid dynamics, boyles laws and the like. Even down to formulas that describe from first principals the spectra from the sun, and how the energy from the sun is produced.
I can build my model from first principals from such formula (ie a pure model). Or I can take the data and find formulas to fit. Or some hybrid. Now I can predict, and test my model against data.
So do you want to explain how the stock market is simpler? What are my variables? Where are my from first principals scientifically proved formulas (clue – there aren’t any)? How do I measure the variables?
It’s broken just at the data level, forget the formulas. Best you can do is try and retrofit a model to very partial data set. Not surprisingly that doesn’t work very well.
So explain to me – how predicting the stock market is simpler?
I’d also point out that we already have weather models which prove my point. Ie they predict the weather using just the mechanisms I’ve described. Climate change is more complicated – but it’s not a whole different ball game.
Wheres the stock market equivalent? As apparently its easier and presumably much more profitable.
#56 – pedro,
#50 So there aren’t any proven scientific facts. Gee, this global warmers have their head full of steam.
Remember, this includes general relativity (gravity). I’ve got a wonderful experiment for you to try …
# 56 pedro
‘So there aren’t any proven scientific facts. Gee, this global warmers have their head full of steam.’
You can prove things mathematically from first principals. That is if the proof is correct, within the system they are correct.
In the real world where science (that is all of science) theories cannot be 100% proven, as the principals may be in error, or there may be some deeper underlying principal.
For example Netwons laws work and are ‘correct’, except where they break down for things that are very big or very small. Then you need quantum mechanics, or general relativity or the like.
Newtons laws are not ‘wrong’ they just don’t work well in all situations. They are actually provable within other laws that science has subsequently found. Ie Newtons gravitation laws can be proved within tolerences from the more profound special/general relativity.
It is tedious to hear people that don’t understand science wave ‘nothing is proven’ as some kind of argument against science. Not least because the computer you are using could only exist if said laws are _very_ correct. That doesn’t mean they are correct throughout the universe for example. Or that a better more correct description will not be found.
#36 MS
Sorry it’s
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011207iceage.html
but this squarespace crap don’t do URL’s right
[It’s WordPress crap. – ed.]
#59 – freddybobs68k,
That explanation is way too good and too detailed for the three neurons in pedro’s head to comprehend. Besides, I’m really hoping he’s going to test gravity. Alternately, testing electromagnetic theory could be interesting. pedro, take two screw drivers, go to the nearest electrical socket and …
Remember, it’s just a theory. It’s not really proven. Go for it.
#60 – amodedoma,
Thanks. Interesting article. Please note this from your post though.
Given that the current forecast is for a minimum of 2 degrees C and business as usual estimates go as high as 5-6 degrees C, the current maunder minimum is unlikely to help us much. 6 degrees C was enough to cause the P/T extinction.
We’ve long known about the Milankovich cycles. We’ve been bucking their trend for a while now.
Here’s some more for any idiots that think 1998 as the warmest year is somehow statistically significant.
http://tinyurl.com/ms3pwb
http://tinyurl.com/qe35kv
I don’t personally find this all that significant. But, for idiots who think a small sample size means something, such as this year being cooler than 1998, perhaps seeing that the global ocean surface temperature was warmer will mean something.
Personally, I still look at longer term trends than this. And, the long term trend is blatantly obvious.
No reason to argue children. Some will be prepared, others will go down kicking and screaming – (typical hysterical reaction of a person accustomed to living in denial). If you got money there’s no time like the present to invest in a little house in the country. Make sure it has a little arable land and easy water source. If you still got money set up solar panels and/or wind generator. Making a stash of dry goods and canned goods is a good idea too, it’s cheap, and it’s stuff you’ll consume eventually. I plan to store 100 kilos of rice(among other stuff) part of which I hope to use in barter for other goods and services. If I’m wrong I’ll have a great place to spend weekends and holidays, and I won’t have to buy rice for a while. If I’m right, my family and I will survive, while the unprepared die pathetically.
#62 MS
Yeah but, back then the only data they could collect was sunspots. There was no way of relating that to coronal activity or sudden changes in the magnetosphere. The earth could’ve been blasted by CME on numerous occasions in the past and just not had the instruments to detect or measure. Hell they wouldn’t have noticed 1859’s solar storm if it weren’t for the damage to the few telegraph cables in existence. Human society has progressed thanks to an unusually stable time in earth’s history, that’s about to end.
#64 – amodedoma,
For that plan to work, you better stock up on weaponry and ammunition as well. And, hope that you bought more of it than the other million folks around you who all want your rice.
#65 – ‘dro,
I’m not the one questioning science. You are. How’d that jumping off a bridge thing work for you? What about the screwdriver in each hand and into the electrical socket?
If I’ve ever questioned evolution, it was because of the likes of you. And, then I merely came to the conclusion that our species was evolving smaller brains. Perhaps that will help us survive.
Large brains and thumbs aren’t working well for us. Perhaps we should all try your route.
Either way, I’ve taken my genes out of the pool to avoid having my kids deal with turds like you.
#67 MS
Just a 150lb crossbow I plan to use only to hunt. My house is in La Rioja Spain, the town I live on the edge of is a very small community (30 permanent residents, many more on weekends and holidays) with good social cohesion. Guns won’t be enough to ensure safety. Small agricultural communities will be the safest bet and that’s what I sought out.
# 65 pedro
‘So seems a foregone conclusion that #58 & #59 oppose evolution. I’d love a pic of you two ridding a dinosaur.’
That makes no sense.
Please explain step by step how you draw that conclusion?